/lisg/ - Life is Strange General #446

Simply put: A lot of people here don't like it because the characters are rude, it's OOC, and needlessly torturing.
You're free to like it if you want, but mentioning it here will just catch you flak.

also- this dude still on?

Max had a vision of herself, alone, on the cliff with the storm. Then she saved Chloe and then in the next vision, Chloe was with her on the cliff and the storm.

It is absolutely illogical based on that alone to sacrifice Chloe. You have to assume sacrificing her will not stop the storm. Because you've seen the storm without saving her. Without her on the cliff. Without her alive in Episode 4. It's ridiculous. Not to mention all the other assumptions that choice is making.

But logic should not play into the choice anyway. Nor guilt or anything. Nothing but Max's true feelings should. What her heart tells her, what she thinks is right. And how I understand her and the story, that can only be to save Chloe.

*Without her alive in Episode 5.

Amen to that. In the end of everything, it's Max's power (Which she didn't even ask for) and nobody can fault her for giving up someone she loves.

>As Max and Chloe are leaving the ruins of Arcadia Bay behind, there's one more tragic story unfolding
>Alice and Lisa stuck in Max's room, Alice hasn't eaten anything in days, the dorms are destroyed and no one comes looking for them
>"No one's gonna come save us, this is the end, we'll starve to death..."
>Alice...you can survive this and go back to your owner. All you have to do is... all you have to do is eat me."
>"What? No, fuck that. Lisa, you're my number one priority, I'm not eating you!"
>"Alice, think about it... how many times this week did you try to nibble my leafs? I'm a plant, Alice, you're a bunny, maybe it's time I accept my destiny... OUR destiny."
>"Lisa, I can't make this choice!"
>"No Alice, you're the only one who can"

>eat Lisa
instaud.io/kVV

>eat your own foot
instaud.io/kWb

>letting Chloe die will work from a player perspective, because you realise the story structure and the dev bias
Where does this meme come from? What, thematically, suggests that Chloe dying ought to be the end of the story?
If you really want to get into the postmodern storytelling side of things, the most 'apt' ending would have been to have Max doomed to repeat the week over and over again

>But I'm disappointed that Chloe doesn't berate you (or react at all really) when you essentially let her mother die.
Above all, Chloe wanted Max to make her choice without feeling guilty. Her suggestion to sacrifice herself was primarily that: giving Max an out. She wanted to take part of the burden away because she saw how fucking unfair it is what Max had to go through and the choices she was confronted with. It's an ultimate self-sacrificial act of love to take upon herself the guilt Max feels. The greatest opposite of the (minor) guilt-tripping we saw at the beginning of the game.

So berating her for the choice is exactly what she would know to never do. She knows that it all isn't Max's fault, that it is cruel and unfair. And when Max then choses her - free from guilt, regret, doubt -, she knows Max cares about her above all. A great act of loyalty and love. The greatest opposite of abandonment, which is obviously a core theme with Chloe.

Chloe's emotional reaction is a bit lacklustre, but not primarily with regards to the storm - it is lacklustre with regards to the overwhelming meaning of Max's choice to stick to her through everything. Taking Max's hand, telling her that she'll always be with her, giving her a strong shoulder to lean on and hide away in while the storm rages - that's a powerful gesture, but Chloe's own emotional response could have been more powerful there.

Either way, while the endings leave a lot to be desired and offer a lot to complain about, conceptually this ending does a lot I could have only ever hoped it would. It very much is the narratively satisfying conclusion to my understanding of the story in as much as that the story is all about Max and Chloe's relationship, about their love transcending everything, them overcoming everything together through it. All the terrible shit understood as obstacles the height of which giving notion to the infinitely higher jumps this love has them able to make.

except for chloe's long-ass speach about how she would rather die than have her mom explode in the diner, basically begging max to sacrifice her

Even if Joyce died (Which I doubt) she's a parent, and she would want to see Chloe safe and happy above all else.
If Chloe dies, do you think Joyce and David would survive it? I certainly don't. Joyce losing her only child and last real reminder of William, and David failing both as a security guard and as a father. That's horrific to put them through.
And that's not even going into how devastated, lonely, and afraid Max would be.

not arguing that, but chloe would at least freak out on max when she tears up the photo, again due to what she said right before

Why should she freak out? She tells Max she's the only one that can make the choice, and that she will respect it no matter what she picks because she's trusts Max.
Having just been spared a death sentence I think it was appropriate for Chloe to be mostly speechless and just holding Max.
It would have ruined the moment if Chloe just started yelling and freaking out. Later on, she may ask Max she picked her. And Max will be honest.

...

this is hella cute!

I'm being told there will be no orgy

>One job.
I wonder if they were thinking of Max's Ep5 Gallery jacket? It looks closer to Chloe's jacket than Max's usual hoodie does, so maybe that's why they chose that colour instead?

It got changed to a potluck dinner.
Be sure to bring something good!

Which is exactly what I was talking about. She only said that after Max continued beating herself up ("This is my storm! I caused all of this!") - before that, she said to stop beating herself up and that they'd paid their dues. Then led them out of the way of the storm into safety. Her decision was made - to survive with Max. Only when the latter was still conflicted is when Chloe - hesitatingly - pulled out the photo.

I'm not saying she didn't really mean all of what she said, but it is no obvious that Chloe does not want to die just as little as she does not want Joyce to die or the storm to hit Arcadia altogether. What she really wants is for Max to make her choice without that self-doubt, self-criticising, guilt and so on. To make the choice she wants for her reasons.

She was "begging" for it to make it easier for Max. Again, giving her that out, taking it all up on herself. Which does not mean she would be against Max refusing to let her die, at all; which is evidenced by her leading them into safety in the first place, saying she will make the right choice, and then accepting and embracing Max's choice unconditionally. (Whereas with the other choice, she actually says "Do it before I freak!" - indicating that she does not accept it completely.)

She has a hard time even saying the word "die".
Chloe clearly wants to live, and live with Max. She's hurting over Rachel being dead and she mourns for her friend, but she has already moved on to accept she wants to be with Max.
Anyone saying Chloe wanted to die missed the point entirely: she'd rather die than see Max feel guilty about more people getting hurt. Even though Max has no guilt. But that is something that would take some time for her to realize.

Precisely.

And I like to think in her final decision already lies that very realization. Of that, and so much more too.

Either way, above all Chloe suggesting to sacrifice herself was an ultimate act of love for Max. She was ready to give her life for Max. And Max ripping the Polaroid apart above all an ultimate act of love for Chloe. She was ready to give everything for Chloe.

Max realizing a lot about herself and the week in that very moment, and Chloe not freaking or regretting for even just a second - realizing what Max sticking to her means, that they really meant it: to be together forever, lasting, loving. As Max, she is not comparing her life against other peoples' anymore - it's unconditional commitment, loyalty and love; taking Maxes hand, re-newing the promise of always, forever being there for each other. Embracing their destiny.

And as has been said before, the storm is really one of the lesser obstacles their love has overcome. The death of William and Rachel, all that Max had to go through, all that Chloe endured, time it-fucking-self, entire universes - all overcome with, through and for each other.

Both that post and that image are beautiful. And entirely correct.
Some saw it all as building up to accepting Chloe's death. But it's clear that myself, you, other anons here, and Max see it as the exact opposite. Max and Chloe were destined to be together and nothing, and no one, will stop it.

Yeah, I assume that's it. But it makes no sense in a color swap - it's specifically not a clothes swap!

There's definitely things to be said about that (and other) interpretation. But to me, only this one feels right and at all conclusive. Their love stands at beginning, center and end of it all - it's the story's core, it's the LiSverse's purpose altogether. Destiny.

Not to mention that "metaphorical journey toward acceptance" is such a lame and frankly paradoxical notion here. I guarantee that Max would have had an infinitely easier time accepting Chloe's death without the week. Her not accepting it can thus be only indicative of one thing: it is impossible to separate them, they are meant to be together.

And then going back and undoing the story's originative act is such an immense surrender. A message that you cannot do anything and should not fight for what you care about. That you are wrong to stand up for what you consider right. That you shouldn't follow your feelings and embrace your decisions, but realize that your feelings and what you consider right is wrong and that you should give all of that up to maneuver safely in this world. Fuck that. That's an admission of defeat to the cruel whim of the universe, a surrendering of one's identity to things outside of oneself, the death of interhuman connections and love in the face of what - ungraspable, uncontrollable forces of nature. Why give up everything that is human in the face of this impersonal arbitrarity? That is exactly when we stand against it, when we fight and hold on to each other and look into our hearts. Because that is what makes us human, the conflict in which humanity is expressed at all - "the light we whisper into the unending darkness".

>Max and Chloe were destined to be together ...

I really think this is reaching a bit. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest it's all but objectively false. Given all the themes of "destiny" and such, it doesn't make any sense for "the Universe" to be actively (or passively) killing Chloe off every 30 seconds - including abandoning her to death/disfigurement in multiple alternate timelines - if the two are *destined* to be together. The long-held alternative seems much better supported on this front - that Chloe is *destined* to die.

I think, in actual fact, your statement of ...

>Max and Chloe were destined to be together and nothing, and no one, will stop it.

... is more accurate if changed to this: Max and Chloe are destined to be apart, but *Max* will try to stop that.

After all, that's the whole point of giving agency to the player, right?

Part of the problem with your interpretation is that the Bay ending doesn't make sense. The girls are *destined* to be together ... but then aren't? I mean, if they're *destined* to be together, does any of Max's actions matter? Could she just veg out on her couch all week and have Chloe be magically revived without her intervention by the end? I'm know there are so many different ways to interpret what "destiny" means, but I think it's fairly unambiguous that it means said outcome absolutely *will* happen, and we know this isn't true of Max/Chloe unless Max *actively* participates in proceedings.

The latter works for both endings, because it is based entirely on *Max's* actions. Accept destiny, or actively fight against it, both make sense and are internally consistent with both the "Universe" and the player's choice. (I suppose you could argue the reverse - if Chloe is destined to die, why do they end up together ... but really, the bae ending potentially just kicks other Chloe-deaths further down the road - even if decades down the line - so it's hard to say.)

I've been gone for a while.

Anything new in the lives of only canon, Pricefield?

>killing Chloe off every 30 seconds
But this does not happen. She was not supposed to die in the bathroom originally, and throughout the week there are really not strikingly many Chloe-deaths (well, not in the context of the idea that "the universe is trying to kill" anyway): there's 4 deaths, 5 if you count the bathroom twice. One of which only occurs potentially.

>Bay ending doesn't make sense. The girls are *destined* to be together ... but then aren't?
Or - similarly to your argument - it only kicks other Chloe-saves further down the road.

>does any of Max's actions matter?
That is the fickle nature of the concept of "destiny" altogether, isn't it? As you say, there are different ways to interpret it, and while it is clearly meant to point toward something inevitable, this does not mean it lies outside of people. Max can only save Chloe because she is Max and Chloe is Chloe, they feel what they feel and do what they do - which is part of destiny. It does not take away from that, and it does not mean Max's actions do not matter - "destiny" is the result of all that, the interplay. Not something you necessarily assume as pre-determined and that then happens no matter what, but something that you can look back to and say surely this must have been meant to happen, runs tangibly through all those events, decisions that led to them, people, their feelings.

Either way, this comes down to an argument about whether it could be destiny by any stretch of the interpretation, which is not the argument I'd want to make to begin with. Call it what you want, I for one am just saying Max and Chloe apart is an impossibility; whether that stems from an outter purpose ("destiny") or inner purpose (love) - I make no distinction there.

"Fighting destiny" also has a nice ring to it, I'll give it that. But then that comes with the implication that they'd have to keep fighting, events "trying" to keep them apart continuously. And I don't like that thought.

With avoiding all optional deaths, Chloe dies twice; in the bathroom as Max rewinds and when Jefferson shoots her. Three time if you count the alternate timeline where she's paralyzed.
Kate also dies twice before Max possibly saves her. Was Kate meant to die?
Max also faces numerous deaths in the Dark Room and it's only because of her power that she survives until she can help David.

Nobody is destined to die. The universe does not care otherwise it would have created a storm a week after Max saved William, or there would have been more signs of another disaster after saving Kate.
There wasn't. Max sees the storm before doing anything and it's coming in every timeline, even one where the Max there doesn't have any power.

As for the point about them destined to be together. Max got a power, without trying or wanting, and in that moment she saved a girl. That girl turned out to be Chloe. If they were not meant to be together then Chloe would have died and Max would have had to live with it. But she got the power to change it.
There is no indication that saving Chloe would cause more disaster nor that Chloe would keep dying. If you want to go that route then one could easily say the storm will still come at some point down the road and hit Arcadia Bay.

>there's 4 deaths, 5 if you count the bathroom twice.
I mean, surely this is a point in my favour? "Every 30 seconds" was a deliberate exaggeration on my part, but 4-5 deaths in as many days *is* alarming, given that the average should be ... zero.

>Or - similarly to your argument - it only kicks other Chloe-saves further down the road.
I'm not sure I get what you mean. If Chloe dies (Bay ending), there's no way for the "they're destined to be together" stuff to be fulfilled ... unless we want to assume further time-travel shenanigans past the credits, and I think it's safe to rule that out. If Max saves Chloe (Bae ending), there's still a million-and-one ways Chloe might die past the credits. And Max could be just as active in preventing those as she was during the 5 days of the game. I think *this* is the point - in this context, the bae ending decision isn't necessarily about the girls being *destined* to be together, it's Max making the active choice to *keep* them together. We assume she's just as fearlessly protective past the credits too, even if we don't know how successful she'll be.

There is also the added bonus that the "it's all about Max's actions" stays basically identical if you get rid of all the destiny talk too.

>That is the fickle nature of the concept of "destiny" altogether, isn't it?
Yep.

>But then that comes with the implication that they'd have to keep fighting
Yeah. But you could also interpret their "defeat" of the supernatural storm as being their "defeat" of such a destiny. I think it'd be fair to choose to interpret the ending as "Chloe is safe now".

Before Episode 5's release:
>Lol Mari's theories're shitty.It's way more than shitty to become true
>Chloe has to die thing doesn't make sense.Don't worry they will come with unpredictable story
>We're gonna learn everything about Max's powers,Rachel and Prescotts even Nathan,spirit animals..
>Jefferson knows about Max's powers
>Nathan,Frank,David or Samuel's gonna save us
>Victoria's with Max,she'll save her
>(After seeing Cemetery scene from leaks) I'm sure it'll be Williams,Rachel's or Kate's grave.
>Rachel's the doe and Butterfly and probably we'll see her in Max's dream
>Blue Jay's Chloe

After Episode 5's release:
>Mari's shitty cliche theory became right
>We visited the SF art gallery for 3 seconds. FOR 3 DAMN SECONDS
>Jefferson became a silly bad guy from Disney
>David came to save us.He's a former-soldier but he can't even fight,just listens teenager's orders. Even he doesn't know she has some time travel powers.
>Victoria's with us in the dark room.Laying there and we can talk her or not.Just it.
>Nathan get killed,Victoria too
>Nathan knew something about the storm but they cut it.
>Warren explained Max's powers(!)(thanks warryn) We found out her power causes/related with Chaos Theory and storm.It's not like we didn't know or something.
>Storm is only coming for Bay because Chloe lives in there but Max's the one who keep changes the time
>Prescotts story erased.Nobody even mention their name.
>Rachel's story fucked too.She isn't or butterfly,bluejay just spiritualdoe
>Spirit animals thing died.Blue Butterfly's storm summoner just it.
>Chloe dies again in one of endings (unpredictable) It gives you a lesson: You shouldn't have used your power.And you shouldn't play this game.Now erase your choices and cry like a bitch.
>Chloe has to die thing comes true, Cemetery scene explained with that.
>The other ending's short but it's less cliché than other.We saved Chloe,storm's hit the town and gone.That's it.
>Epilogue: Use ur imaginations:)muh budget

>Max and Chloe are destined to be apart,
Yeah that's why she got these magical powers in the first place, just when she could save *that girl*'s life.

It's destiny and fate.
youtube.com/watch?v=qW_n9N_lJ1A

The average is surely not zero - and hey, the game world average is... David makes up for those 4-5 deaths in literally 30 seconds!

Since Chloe was not originally even supposed to die from the gunshot, I always had a hard time considering the "final destination" angle altogether. But then I bring up "death of the author" often enough for it to be hyprocritical if I would dismiss an interpretation based on author intention.

Still, it really doesn't seem to me that Chloe is destined to die, or Max and Chloe apart. But again, I could accept seeing things that way - then they will have to keep fighting for each other and love! :)

>and I think it's safe to rule that out.
How so? That's my point: The idea of the "universe" contriving deadly scenarios for Chloe is equally as far-fetched as that of Max "contrivedly" going back after the credits to save Chloe. Which is... not all so far-fetched at all; there could be arguments for and against either - I guess it then comes down to narrative perspective, or even just pure preference.

>Max making the active choice to *keep* them together.
Yeah again, I could accept the "fighting destiny" view on it. I'm not too keen on establishing destiny as a significant concept in this narrative altogether - I mostly just throw it into my posts because it sounds cool. There's ways to think about that concept that do make me reconsider using it at all here, some of which you mention.

So yeah, I'm willing to let go of destiny talk altogether. Not least because that "how successful she'll be" question: I'd say successful beyond all - the universe crumbles before she fails... but as I've said, I don't like that thought of more struggle and more desaster. But even if it had to be, I'd still say Pricefield or bust. And as would Max. ...I mean, she ~did~ already sacrifice entire universes.

>"defeat" of such a destiny
Yep, I could embrace that interpretation of it!

They got a dog recently. Looking to get married too ("Quick Max, marry me, before Mr. Trump recalls the new laws!").

Or you mean like, news on the game? Nada...

That said, this difference in possible interpretation does obviously latently have to do with the possible differences in ending choices altogether. When I say I consider Bay an impossibility (and use vague concepts such as "destiny" in that context), I'm speaking from a place of personal understanding and reading (and preference, feeling, ...) of the story that - while based on my interpretation of the actual story - still keeps in mind the considerable ambiguity both in actualities and implications of the story, which can and do give legitimacy to other readings - even to those that consider Bay "right" for themselves and their understanding and reading of the story.

And above all, peoples' personal reasons and feelings behind picking either ending are legitimate just in and of themselves, of course. So I'm not trying to spin this as a for-or-against argument strictly to do with the endings.

>If Chloe dies (Bay ending), there's no way for the "they're destined to be together" stuff to be fulfilled
Did you see that ''blue'' butterfly at the end? It may not be directly Chloe's spirit or shit.But at least seeing that made Max smile.

> If Max saves Chloe (Bae ending), there's still a million-and-one ways Chloe might die past the credits. And Max could be just as active in preventing those as she was during the 5 days of the game. I think *this* is the point - in this context, the bae ending decision isn't necessarily about the girls being *destined* to be together, it's Max making the active choice to *keep* them together.

This is just a plain logic.You want to imply that ''universe just wants to get rid of Chloe that's why she was dying nearly entire episodes'' Sure let's think in your way.If we think about in your way we can also imply that everybody destined to die anyway because some of them may die one of endings/has rewind-needed deaths

For Chloe, she was always in trouble.And we all know that universe had triggered because Max used her powers in the first place/saved Chloe's life; that's how things are started.So to your logic, if universe really tries to get rid of Chloe then, why didn't storm stop when Jefferson killed Chloe? (also if the train'd hit her.. storm'd still be coming) So this clearly implies that storm only connected with Max's using her powers in first place and obviously that's connected with saving Chloe's alive.Even if there're so many plot holes,non-sense things in time-travel in this game, this is endings' point.
So there's no such a thing like ''universe will get rid of Chloe someday, will die past-credits in bae ending'' (only if they wouldn't get in troubles)

>If Chloe dies (Bay ending), there's no way for the "they're destined to be together" stuff to be fulfilled
>If Max saves Chloe (Bae ending), there's still a million-and-one ways Chloe might die past the credits.
>the bae ending decision isn't necessarily about the girls being *destined* to be together, it's Max making the active choice to *keep* them together. We assume she's just as fearlessly protective past the credits too, even if we don't know how successful she'll be.

"You were here today, Max. You saved me! I'm still tripping on that... Seeing you after all these years feels like—" ' 'DESTINY?''

"I remember this famous episode of the original Star Trek, where Kirk has to go back in time and let the person he loves die, so the Nazis won't win the war... What kind of fucked up choice is that? What would have happened if I had not been in the school bathroom to save Chloe that day?" "But dammit, I was there and thus I was supposed to be there. DESTINY."

''we were meant to be together at this exact moment in history''

"Wherever I end up after this... in whatever reality... all those moments between us were real, and they'll always be ours. No matter what you choose, I know you'll make the right decision."

you've forgot to add these:
>"I'll always love you... Now, get out of here, please! Do it before I freak. And Max Caulfield? Don't you forget about me..."
>"Never."

>"Max… I'll always be with you."
>"Forever…"

Even if the player picks the Bay ending, Max will just go back and save Chloe again. Because that is what she wants.
Although I would have given major props to Dontnod if the player chose Sacrifice Chloe, Max went into autopilot, and then came to on the cliff, with Chloe, as the storm approaches.
Showing that autopilot Max was in the bathroom, realized it was Chloe, discovered her rewind power, and carried on the week.

It would have destroyed the idea of multiple endings, but it would have been a good twist and validation of Max's feelings and dedication.
Still even then I wouldn't have risked Chloe's life by going back. Max says she's done changing the past.

>With avoiding all optional deaths, Chloe dies twice; in the bathroom as Max rewinds and when Jefferson shoots her. Three time if you count the alternate timeline where she's paralyzed.

I think it's fair to argue the close calls too. The argument is that "the Universe" is out to get her, not that it always succeeds. So I'd count the train here, I'd count the gallery timeline where it seems like Chloe might have been killed by the storm, etc. The gunshot in the junkyard might be fair game (depending on your point of view), and you could also maybe throw in the idea of Max "abandoning" other Chloe's in other timelines (which other-Max remarks about in Ep5).

I think there's enough going on here to at least argue that Chloe is in an actively unsafe state throughout the week. With that said ...

>Nobody is destined to die.
I think this is a fair interpretation ... but I also think it's hard to argue in support of it. Chloe's death in the bathroom *is* obviously earmarked as some special event, given that it appears to be *the* deciding factor for the *supernatural* storm. It might not make any obvious sense as to why *this* event is important, why other deaths aren't, why the storm seems to be coming in the alternate timeline too, etc, but regardless, it's clear that it *is* the case.

>But she got the power to change it.
Yep. And yet, with the power, she has to be actively on the look out for Chloe-deaths all week ... and shit gets totally fucked up at the end of the week *if* she succeeds. Like I said in a previous post, I'm not sure it really works to call something "destiny" if a character has to actively work towards the result, and is lumped with something like the *supernatural storm* if she succeeds. I still think it makes much more sense that "the Universe" wants Chloe dead, and it's Max's job to fight against it (heck, maybe spirit Rachel bestowed Max with her powers in an attempt to protect Chloe? :P)

1/2

>There is no indication that saving Chloe would cause more disaster nor that Chloe would keep dying.
I agree. And I think it's fair to argue that their weathering the storm could be interpreted as their "beating" this "destiny". But the point is that we don't see what comes after the credits, and Chloe *could* still be in peril.

In a "the girls are supposed to be together" interpretation, the Bay ending doesn't make sense ... because they're not. In a "Chloe is supposed to die" interpretation, the end states are either "destiny won and Chloe died", or "Max has successfully fought off destiny ... for now". I think it's fair to argue that the later works better than the former on the "destiny" front, and on the player agency front.

>If you want to go that route then one could easily say the storm will still come at some point down the road and hit Arcadia Bay.
I mean, maybe, but I think this would be reaching. Chloe can potentially die in a whole bunch of ways throughout the week, but we only *ever* see the storm in a single context, unchanging, and occurring at the same time/place. It's easy to imagine Chloe dying in some random way post-credits, but it's less easy to imagine the storm randomly appearing again randomly in a way that doesn't really jive with how it's acted for the entirely of the rest of the game.

2/2

>If Max saves Chloe (Bae ending), there's still a million-and-one ways Chloe might die past the credits
>but really, the bae ending potentially just kicks other Chloe-deaths further down the road
It's been almost 1,5 year since this game was released and completed.
But you're still whinning about 'you just delayed chloe's deaths in bae end' without getting this game's time-travel mechanic's point.

You also forgot (in my opinion) one of the best and most powerful lines in the game.

"I always wanted my life to be something special, an adventure. But not without you."

>David makes up for those 4-5 deaths in literally 30 seconds!
Sure, but that was in a bit of a contrived situation where he was literally fighting for his life against a killer. Many of Chloe's deaths (eg. train, car crash in alternate timeline) are just kinda random.

>Since Chloe was not originally even supposed to die from the gunshot ...
I thought it was just supposed to be ambiguous? The game was to just end with her in a coma?

But yeah, hard to say. Such an ending would arguably jive better with the "destined to be together" stuff: even "death" can't take Chloe from Max.

>How so?
Because the story ended. I mean, you could argue that Max has a change of heart days after Chloe's funeral, jumps into some old photo, and starts messing with stuff again. But it's kinda cute to be suggesting such massssive story arcs following the end of the story.

The "Chloe is destined to die" stuff doesn't have the same problem, because it ends simply on the status quo (Chloe is still "marked for death") in the bae ending. Nothing about the "state" of things changes post-credits, the point is entirely that Max has made the decision to keep fighting *for* Chloe. (But as previously, I think it's fair to argue that their "defeating" the storm may remove the "Universe trying to kill Chloe' effect too.)

>I'm not too keen on establishing destiny as a significant concept in this narrative altogether
I agree. I wouldn't really use "destiny" as my word of choice in most of this either, it's just the word that the OP I was responding to chose to use.

>It's been almost 1,5 year since this game was released and completed.
>But you're still whinning about 'you just delayed chloe's deaths in bae end' without getting this game's time-travel mechanic's point.
It's been at least 18 years, yet you're still unable to read?

*In-game* all Max's time-travel mechanic does *is* kick Chloe's deaths further down the road. You're kinda making my point for me here.

But I'm not even arguing that this *is* what's happening. Like I said earlier, "destiny" really isn't the way I'd prefer to describe what's actually going on here, and my own view of it is that post-Bae-credits, Chloe isn't actively being chased by angry supernatural forces. I'm merely arguing that of the two "destiny" interpretations, the "Chloe is in danger" one seems to make the most sense.

Chloe's death and close calls are mostly due to carelessness and impulsiveness.
Which is understandable. Chloe hasn't seen max in five years, and she's been pretty much alone since Rachel disappeared six months prior.
She's happy and excited to have a friend to hang out with and she';s trying to show 'how badass' she is. Once she gets past that first week and is a little more careful, she will be fine.

Again, Max saves other than Chloe by using her power. Is Kate going to die again? Is David? Is Max? No. And neither will Chloe.

The only logical cause of the storm, if you're linking it to Max's powers, is the very first rewind that also moved Max back in time. But Max cannot go back to before that because the photo she has of the butterfly is the second one she's taken. So if saving Chloe the first time caused the storm, that's no longer undoable because Max's photo of the butterfly was taken AFTER she already used her power.
You can call that a plothole but it's what's in the game and I have no reason, nor inclination, to shrug that off and just blindly believe whatever dialogue is forced at the end of the game to try to suddenly blame Max for something she has no control over.

>The argument is that "the Universe" is out to get her, not that it always succeeds.So I'd count the train here.The gunshot in the junkyard might be fair game (depending on your point of view), and you could also maybe throw in the idea of Max "abandoning" other Chloe's in other timelines (which other-Max remarks about in Ep5).
> Chloe can potentially die in a whole bunch of ways throughout the week, but we only *ever* see the storm in a single context, unchanging, and occurring at the same time/place. It's easy to imagine Chloe dying in some random way post-credits

>Chloe might have been killed by the storm
Along with other town's people...

You can also count where Jefferson killed her.Even after she's died storm was still coming.So if your 'universe tries to get rid of Chloe'd true then after it finished his job with Chloe, then storm should've been stopped right?

>I still think it makes much more sense that "the Universe" wants Chloe dead,
>The "Chloe is destined to die" stuff doesn't have the same problem, because it ends simply on the status quo (Chloe is still "marked for death") in the bae ending.
But it isn't.Storm's arrival connecting with Max's using her powers in the first place by saving Chloe's life.

If you save Chloe, she's just going to die again
Say 80 or 90 years after the storm.

>*In-game* all Max's time-travel mechanic does *is* kick Chloe's deaths further down the road.
Chloe was always in goddamn trouble yeah.AND IF SHE DIED EARLIER (in train crash,shot herself in junkyard etc) STORM'D STILL COME BECAUSE STORM HAD BEEN ALREADY TRIGGERED BY MAX'S USING HER POWERS IN FIRST PLACE.THAT'S WHY STORM WAS STILL COMING AFTER JEFFERSON SHOT HER.

>But I'm not even arguing that this *is* what's happening
I bet you have no idea about what are you trying to argue here. I hope that you are aware of none of your interpretation does make sense and neither of them are connected with context of the game.

>If we think about in your way we can also imply that everybody destined to die anyway because some of them may die one of endings/has rewind-needed deaths

I don't think so, or at least, the game doesn't seem to work this way.

The game highlights Chloe's bathroom death as important. We don't know why, but that's the reality of the situation. Other deaths aren't highlighted in the same way. Just because one person is trapped in some weird, unexplained "destiny" loop, it doesn't mean that everyone else's death/near-death experiences are just as special.

>So to your logic, if universe really tries to get rid of Chloe then, why didn't storm stop when Jefferson killed Chloe?
It's hard to judge. There are a bunch of different interpretations one could make ("the Universe" is trying to cancel out the error by killing Chloe, but the damage from her not dying in the bathroom is already done, etc).

>So this clearly implies that storm only connected with Max's using her powers in first place ...
This is actually one of the things we can be pretty sure is *not* correct, because Max uses her powers earlier in the timeline than Chloe's initial death. Stopping the storm is entirely tied to Chloe living/dying in the bathroom, that's about all we can really say.

The issue is that none of this addresses the issue I raised in my first post: if they're "destined" to be together, why does one ending end with them ... not? It just doesn't really make much sense from a "destiny" point of view, nor is "well, Max just rewound after the credits and went on another adventure that we didn't see" a hugely satisfactory resolution.

Maybe it's just a petty criticism, but it just seems like a huge oversight to me in such a "destiny" interpretation.

See above.

everybody will die someday user.

>there are really not strikingly many Chloe-deaths
>there's 4 deaths, 5 if you count the bathroom twice
K-kyaa! How many times do you almost die in a week user!?!?! Please be more careful!

I agree. But I'm just saying this is our idea of what will happen - 100% true in our mind, the Bay ending doesn't even exist for us. Which is fair. But I can't force this on other people. Differences and disagreement can coexist - I know where Max and Chloe are, and that's not 6ft under. To know that is enough for me - enough for most regulars in this general. The cemetery in other peoples' minds doesn't bother me. But if we can dig around in there and change their mind, that's good too!

That other interpretations, feelings and views on it are brought up here should be a good thing as well - as long as they are well-reasoned and come from an equally as reasonable place that is aware of the possibility of seeing things differently.

>random
Most of her deaths aren't random at all. Playing with guns, playing on train tracks, pushing onto an unstable psycho kid, investigating a serial criminal...

As I've said, I could accept the idea that the universe is out to get her. I don't know that it gives me or the narrative much (apart from that cool "fighting destiny" idea), and I don't really buy it just like that, but it is a fair argument to make, yes.

>in a coma?
Well, unambiguous enough to at least say the universe is not outright trying to kill her. I mean, get your shit together then universe! How hard can it be to kill Chloe! Max literally used her powers to give you another shot at it instead of doing what she got them for!

>because it ends simply on the status quo
Yes, I can see how that would give the one assumption more weight. As an argument of consistency, that is. Narratively, it does not seem to me that "marked for death" plays into it at all, or that the storm is directly tied to Chloe. At the very least, the narrative then indeed conveys that "defeating destiny" sentiment in the end. It all led to the storm, that was front and center from the get-go, the "supernatural" narrative very tangibly ends with them driving out of Arcadia.

If the literal universe were out to kill me, I would be dancing in joy if I were to almost die only 4 or 5 times!

>The game highlights Chloe's bathroom death as important.
Because Max had discovered her powers in there.

>We don't know why, but that's the reality of the situation
We also don't know:) how did she saw tornado vision before saving Chloe's life,teleported herself into the classroom while it isn't possible etc.

>ther deaths aren't highlighted in the same way. Just because one person is trapped in some weird, unexplained "destiny" loop, it doesn't mean that everyone else's death/near-death experiences are just as special.
She was always in trouble and other town's people has potential deaths, along with Max.

>It's hard to judge. There are a bunch of different interpretations one could make ("the Universe" is trying to cancel out the error by killing Chloe, but the damage from her not dying in the bathroom is already done, etc).

''her not dying in the bathroom is already done'' See? that was my point.Her not dying in the bathroom means,we'd already made changes in first place,bathroom.

>This is actually one of the things we can be pretty sure is *not* correct, because Max uses her powers earlier in the timeline than Chloe's initial death. Stopping the storm is entirely tied to Chloe living/dying in the bathroom, that's about all we can really say.
So is seeing tornado vision before all of these fuckery,teleporting herself into the classroom and after she ripped contest photo in past,she focused on second-time rewind bathroom photo also aren't correct.But those all are happenned and game ignored all of these rules.
So it is correct and game obviously says that because storm's obsessed with ''triggering your powers in first place by saving that girl's life'' But it doesn't make sense,just like events in AU.But it happenned even tho it ignored rules eventually game tells you to that.

>still saying Chloe is gonna die after Bae ending

>Stopping the storm is entirely tied to Chloe living/dying in the bathroom, that's about all we can really say.
so genius, how could storm stopped in bae ending with Chloe's survival?

Can't ice the Price

Sssh. They're sleeping.
>Max mumbling in her dreams about marrying Chloe
>Chloe snoring a little and then snuggling up to Max

I forgot!

Molli is #1

There's too much excitement in this thread!

>pushing onto an unstable psycho kid
It's kinda funny how she essentially pushes Nathan's finger into the trigger. Maybe she was hanging out with dank OG bud guy before going into the bathroom.

I guess!?!? But the universe trying to kill you is a bit of bummer. I praise your optimism user! There's no way the universe could take you out! Especially not when you have such a can-do attitude on your side. I would feel pretty special if the inverse were out to kill me. It must mean I'm super noteworthy!

>how could storm stopped in bae ending with Chloe's survival?
Oh man my head hurts trying to work out what you were trying to say with that.

>Stopping the storm is entirely tied to Chloe living/dying in the bathroom, that's about all we can really say.
That's why we are saying it's not only connected with Chloe's death.Because saving Chloe's life in bathroom also connected with Max's discovering her powers in first place.Game ignoring bunch of major rules like Max's first vision,storm's 5 years arrival after we saved William's life 'before 5 years', ... that's why endings' point (especially bay ending's) doesn't make sense,but point is that.

I blame Nathan for being a fucking moron and carrying a gun loaded, chambered, and without safety. Not even in a proper holster.
Shit, he could have been walking and squeezed the trigger, letting a round loose in Blackwell or shooting himself.

>Oh man my head hurts trying to work out what you were trying to say with that.
you are supposed to back me up late night friend

Can't ax the Max

Max has taught me well!

Be the cutest, kindest, adorkablest, huggavlest, most good-hearted person in the history of videogames? "Can do!"

Defeat the universe, save Chloe, be with her forever and ever? "Can do!"

Go back and even save everyone in the town on top of that? "Can do!"

The ever-elusive, she keeps getting away, nobody can stop her, she can do!

SuperMax saves the day!
She even saves Rachel so Rachel can apologize to Chloe, be honest, hlep Frank, and be their friend.

>so genius, how could storm stopped in bae ending with Chloe's survival?

Uhh, what, so you're arguing that in such an interpretation, the storm should continue raging on eternally until Chloe finally, somehow, dies? Because I certainly don't agree that this is the case.

The storm's occurrence is tied to Chloe's living/dying in the bathroom, not to Chloe's current state any any point afterwards. They're clearly connected by that moment/event, not those which follow.

>If Chloe dies (Bay ending), there's no way for the "they're destined to be together" stuff to be fulfilled
Never thought I'd try to find,say something 'meaningful' about Bay ending.

But I guess you should be moron to not see the message: ''Even they aren't physically together,mentally they will remember all of these moments all of those moments were real they will always be ((theirs)) and they were ((their)) destiny ''

In either endings,they will always be together.

That's a cute interpretation, but I think you're reaching a fair bit here.

Nope,you are really a moron.

If you say so, user. :^)

Sorry user!
But honestly can't work out what you were trying to say!

Oh I never meant to imply it wasn't Nathan fault he's a sociopath. But Chloe does quite literally push him into shooting her. I think the devs intended to show that Nathan wasn't trying to shoot her. But that raises the question of why use live rounds, why have the safety off, why even use a real gun? (I think buying the gun probably cost more than Chloe was extorting him for).

No scene like the Maxine.

>nobody can stop her
You both keep getting away with it!

I'm genuinely impressed that you managed to interpret an interpretation from that sentence. But I think user could have meant the exact opposite of that. As in 'how come the storm stopped'?

Whenever I see that man's face I want to turn him into a newt.

>They're clearly connected by that moment/event, not those which follow.
It's possible to say it's both. Circumstantially, it is tied to the bathroom incident and Chloe living or dying in as much as: if Chloe lives, Max continues using her powers throughout the week - causing the storm. Or even: if Chloe lives, Nathan does not get busted and the Prescott storm-summoning shenanigans proceed. Or yet: if Chloe lives, Rachel does not get mollified by her in the beyond, enragedly summoning upon the storm spirits...

So it is not necessarily tied directly to Chloe in a "she dies there or the universe tries more often to kill her and then throws a tornado-hissifit because it cannot" connection.

And either way, I don't really agree that ruling out the possibility of Max going back after the credits to save Chloe is reasonable.

Max has always used her powers above all for one thing: saving Chloe. That's why she has them to begin with, or so we have to believe. Now she does use them to go back and let her get shot... but it is a very uncertain past and resulting timeline. If players already cry and often regret their decision unbearably, imagine Max in that situation. The "status quo" of this situation and a scenario in which she goes back again would not be a massive narrative twist at all - it's Max, using her powers, to save Chloe. Realizing on that sunny funeral day, the moment she comes to, that she prefers howling winds over harrowing silence.

But we don't have to go there at all, and this discussion never was about those scenarious anyway. More about a proper placement of the concept of "destiny" in this story... which we agreed is easier to just not place at all. Or very much dependent on interpretation.

>Uhh, what, so you're arguing that in such an interpretation, the storm should continue raging on eternally until Chloe finally, somehow, dies? Because I certainly don't agree that this is the case.

mang.i guess you're forgetting what you've said before.

you were trying to imply that there are many million ways that Chloe will die after bae ending because universe was trying to get rid of her -and you are thinking this even after Jefferson's killing Chloe proved that storm's arrival doesn't connect with universe was actually trying to get rid of her-

>The storm's occurrence is tied to Chloe's living/dying in the bathroom, not to Chloe's current state any any point afterwards. They're clearly connected by that moment/event, not those which follow.

then you said ''Stopping the storm is entirely tied to Chloe living/dying in the bathroom, that's about all we can really say'' yes it is. but you are forgetting also Max's enabling her powers in the bathroom also connected with that.but you are acting like game was actually following time-travel logic correctly(while it clearly didn't) that's why you don't accept that.

>so you're arguing that in such an interpretation, the storm should continue raging on eternally until Chloe finally, somehow, dies?
so that's not my interpretation.that's yours because you were the one who's saying universe trying to get rid of Chloe.if universe really triggers by Chloe's existence then storm wouldn't stop until it gets rid of Chloe which would make Bae ending nonsense.

You could even go further and say if Chloe lives, and Max writes her Auto-Self a note not to use her powers, but bust Jefferson and Nathan with the text message and just chill with Chloe, that the storm wouldn't have come. Or any such variation where it's possible for Chloe to come out of the bathroom alive and for the storm still not to appear (as was for a long time the dev intention too).

I'll back you up: Pricefield for the win! I'll take your side regardless of context!

For fuck's sake.
I was trying to say that even if they are not physically together,those moments were theirs.They will always be together and that was their destiny no matter what.Poetic thinking get it? No matter both endings' are shit this's the only thing that I love about.Max and Chloe are soulmates,partners in time.They will always be together mentally&physically

Of course I'm not defending Bay ending here and of course I'm giving Max at least two days to focus on butterfly photo and save Chloe's life again.

>I'll take your side 'regardless of context'!
are you telling me that universe was trying to get rid of Chloe theory makes sense and she will die after bae ending? if you agree with that shitty logic, please don't take my side.

>I'm genuinely impressed that you managed to interpret an interpretation from that sentence. But I think user could have meant the exact opposite of that. As in 'how come the storm stopped'?

But that's what I said? It appeared as though user was suggesting that the storm might have kept raging until some point at which Chloe died. Or alternatively, that the storm might appear again at some point as long as Chloe were still alive.

I don't think either of these scenarios is well supported. The storm is a consequence for Chloe's fate in the bathroom, and the game makes it clear that her state at any point following this doesn't have any affect on it (so it's going to do whatever it wants regardless of whether Chloe is still alive or not at that point). As for the latter, we only ever see the storm in the single context at the same time/place, so it's a stretch to suggest it might come back at some random point in the future. The game doesn't telegraph this at all.

>if Chloe lives, Max continues using her powers throughout the week - causing the storm.
If Max's powers cause the storm, the storm shouldn't "care" about Chloe at all, as Max was using her powers earlier in the timeline than her initial death. This line of reasoning just doesn't make much sense.

>if Chloe lives, Nathan does not get busted and the Prescott storm-summoning shenanigans proceed.
This kind of reasoning (not necessarily Prescott specific) makes sense, but it's hard to work out what the *real* driver of the storm would be. It'd be pretty cheap if it wasn't something we saw - and were involved with - in game.

>Rachel does not get mollified by her in the beyond
If this were true, Chloe's death later in the game should fix the storm too. :P

I think Chloe's bathroom death is still the only reasonable option we have.

When will you understand that neither of time-travel events in game loyal to each other? Time travel parts are just a mess and they've ignored whole rules for binary choices.

>you were trying to imply that there are many million ways that Chloe will die after bae ending
Nope.

I said there are a many million ways she *could* die after bae ending. The point was that it's not fair to argue that significant chunks of the "story" takes place after the game has ended, so the two endings represent the end state. In the "they're destined to be together" interpretation, the Bay ending doesn't make much sense because they didn't end up together. But in the "Chloe is destined to die" interpretation, the Bae ending is simply status quo, it doesn't really matter *if* Chloe dies or not afterwards, because the point would be that Max has made the choice to continue to fight for her afterwards.

Not to mention the numerous posts where I've suggested that Max/Chloe's surviving the storm at the end might represent their "defeating" this destiny, such that Chloe *isn't* being chased by some murderous supernatural destiny following the credits.

>and you are thinking this even after Jefferson's killing Chloe proved that storm's arrival doesn't connect with universe was actually trying to get rid of her-
Already addressed numerous times. Including the quote you literally posted after this sentence.

>but you are forgetting also Max's enabling her powers in the bathroom also connected with that.
I'm not forgetting it - I've pointed out several times that we all but *know* what you're saying here isn't correct. If Max's powers are the cause of the storm, then saving/not-saving Chloe in the bathroom wouldn't matter at all because Max uses her powers earlier in the timeline than when she took the photograph she jumped into at the end of the game. It's Chloe's death/survival here that matter, not Max using her powers.

>if universe really triggers by Chloe's existence then storm wouldn't stop until it gets rid of Chloe
I don't see it that way. The storm appears to be transient, as were all of the other bizarre weather phenomena we saw in the game.

Because where's the fun in discussing anything if we just want to throw our hands up and say "nothing means anything!" :P

Regardless, I don't think I've yet argued anything that specifically requires any consistency from any parts of the game which are explicitly inconsistent ... unless I'm forgetting something silly? For example, if Max not teleporting during a rewind was a key part of my argument, I'd be a bit sheepish given that the devs have explicitly stated that Max's initial rewind included a teleport merely for storytelling reasons. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm relying on anything too outrageous here?

After you've explained all of these, I will agree with you.

>Why the hell did she see tornado vision before she used her powers for the first time
>How the fuck she teleport herself into the classroom while it doesn't possible in game
>How the fuck Chloe's survival in bathroom doesn't related with Max's using her powers in first place
>How the fuck she frozen the time while she was about to save Kate
>Why the hell game has been always trying to imply that Chloe's survival and Max's using her powers in first place has a connection all along? ''"You already altered history by saving my life, smartass.''
>Game has been bullshitting you about it's Chaos theory etc. (even with Warryn's dialogues) But when we saved William's life in AU (before five years) when Max came back to the reality (after five years) storm was still coming and Chloe didn't die in car crash.
>What the hell were those doublemoons?
>Rachel Amber's spirit was guiding us -transculent doe- So what happened her in Episode 5? Did budget cut her either?
>'til the end of game even though no one isn't sure about what was going on, even Max was saying it was all of her fault and overusing her powers is what caused the storm.Why?

I'm not really disagreeing. That "And either way..." intro was supposed to be read as a "Regardless of whether or not one could agree with this...".

I know that you're not defending it. And your poetic idea of them still being together even in the Bay ending spiritually and tied by their experiences is a good idea (their love was real, they would have been together, the love lives on, Chloe lives on - in Max's mind, heart and soul, spiritually around her and so on). I just think Max literally going back and saving Chloe is the better idea, yet. Is the only thing I could see her do.

No. I am saying the argument that the universe is after her can be made. I'm not making it though. And if I would, I would then believe that the storm marks the end of that "destiny" - they have defeated the universe and Chloe would be safe. And at the most extreme, I would believe that Max and her keep fighting and would not succumb, because they have shown to be stronger together than the universe.

>the storm shouldn't "care" about Chloe at all
Which it doesn't: she dies and the storm still comes. The storm "cares" about her rewinds - her rewinds however care about Chloe. No Chloe, no rewinds.

And the idea that the universe "cares" about her is arguable. I don't think so. The deaths are too few and too... not-"final destination"-y. Chloe was not originally supposed to die. We know that dontnod actively cut more deaths - supposedly to not further this very sentiment.

You can make that argument, but the connection to the storm is then even less obvious. Because she does die and the storm still comes, because she is dying in the AU and it comes, because the storm is actually what threatens her in another AU...

>If this were true, Chloe's death later in the game should fix the storm too.
Not if Rachel summoned Pazuzu and set into motion the prophecy - now out of her hands! :^P

>reasonable
W- Well, who wants to be "reasonable" in this magical story!

Of course it's fun to discuss,sharing opinions.
But yeah.. my point still stands.

>The storm "cares" about her rewinds ...
It explicitly doesn't. Because Max rewinds (the game *forces* the player to rewind) earlier in the timeline than the butterfly polaroid in the bathroom. That is, you can't complete the Bay ending without Max having performed several rewinds earlier in the timeline. The storm vanishes despite these rewinds.

>And the idea that the universe "cares" about her is arguable.
I agree.

>The deaths are too few and too... not-"final destination"-y.
I still disagree that they're "too few", and the alternate-timeline Chloe feels *exactly* Final Destinationy to me ... though I think this is for entirely different reasons than a "the Universe is out to get Chloe" interpretation.

>You can make that argument, but the connection to the storm is then even less obvious. Because she does die and the storm still comes, because she is dying in the AU and it comes, because the storm is actually what threatens her in another AU...
One of the ways I read it is that the storm is the consequence for Chloe's fate in the bathroom being messed up. It doesn't necessarily care about what happens to her afterwards (you could argue that her deaths are just coincidental, or you can argue that "the Universe" is out to finish the job for the sake of it), it only cares that *that* moment was screwed with. It's the event, not Chloe, that's important. This isn't a hugely satisfactory answer though, and it still relies on Chloe's fate at that moment being special for some odd reason ... but the rest of the game still relies on this being true too. :P

Even Ride wants off this ride!

Okay. What I thought user may have been suggesting was why would the storm have stopped at all. If it was summoned exclusively to kill Chloe why does the storm clear up, shouldn't it have continued inland until it had killed her. But like I said before I actually have no idea because of how the sentence was structured. I have no idea what's going on anymore. I think I'm just a moron to be quite honest with you family. I'm gonna go play some video games until this blows over. (get it? Blows over. Like Arcadia Bay. I'll see myself out.)

>despite these rewinds
No Chloe, no accumulated rewinds, that is: her rewinds before the second time around in the bathroom change what - repairing her camera that was not broken in the original timeline anyway... and answering one or two questions differently.

The idea that "more rewinds = more severe glitchy cosmical shit = storm" is pretty reasonable in such a narrative. At least reasonable enough to not exclude the possibility that this could be the case, and that Chloe and her fate in the bathroom are tied only circumstantially to the storm.

>too few
Well, they are too few for me to believe the universe is out to get her! If the universe was out to get someone, I would expect literal "final destination"-type stuff. And I'll give you the crazy bumper riccochet (a potential incident!) - but as for the rest, they are not final destination-y at all... What universe relies on a person lying on train tracks and confronting highly dangerous individuals to get the job done!

To be honest, I am fine with this interpretation either way then: even if it was out to get her, this pussy universe stands no chance! It can be beat with common sense!

>It's the event, not Chloe, that's important.
Also possible. Even if that then as you point out complicates the relationship of Chloe and the universe a little more. Like, it's just mad at her and idly throws some death at her waiting for the storm...

Anyway, all you say is reasonable and again, most of your arguments can be made. I could even agree with much of it as it doesn't change anything about my core readings of the game. And even adds to it at least as much as it takes away elsewhere: the "fighting destiny" thing is pretty cool, and, as LNA has pointed out, the universe being out for Chloe would only make her more special!

Chloe > > > > > Kate

>The idea that "more rewinds = more severe glitchy cosmical shit = storm" is pretty reasonable in such a narrative
I don't necessarily disagree that this *could* be the case, but it's otherwise suspicious that nothing about the storm (eg. severity) change as Max continues to accumulate rewinds. Even for some of the bigger rewind events (saving/not-saving Kate), polaroid jumping, etc. The vision we saw of the storm at the start of Ep1 is identical to the final storm.

I just don't think this interpretation of things is very likely. And if it *is* what the developers intended, they did a horrible job of communicating it visually.

You are not just a moron! (And then you'd be ~our~ moron, regardless!) You are Sherlock and very sharp indeed, if I may say so!

Well, it could obviously be argued that her rewinds do affect severity, just that her original vision accounts for all of that.

They did a bad job of communicating a fair share to do with their intentions for the supernatural altogether... But you are right that this intention does not seem likely. Some "bathroom incident is single-most significant event in itself" idea is more likely what they'd had in mind than "bathroom incident is only circumstantially significant, and you could prevent the storm by just not rewinding anymore after leaving the bathroom".

But then using creator intention and going back to what the argument was originally about, dontnod's intention was very likely not that the universe is out to get Chloe. Again, they'd had her survive the bathroom and all.

Besides, in the end they did do a poor enough job of communicating this, and good enough job of dropping (only slightly confused) lore hints of possible sources of the storm, that there's plenty room for imagination. And why then go with the most "reasonable" assumption? When it can be so much more fun and satisfying with a vengeful/regretful Rachel, evil spirits and Prescott intrigue, and not just a grumpy, picky universe.

Wallpaper material.

...

Reminder that this contest exists.

I wish I was good at stuff, it'd be awesome to win that.