/lisg/ - Life is Strange General #544

Max will get it one day (...maybe)

Nope. Just dedicated posters.

No, it's a tradition

>and Chloe also never tried to contact Max in the original timeline.
Assumption

I always asked myself the same question

To be fair, going for a small town setting after they've already done and established themselves on the international video game market and consciousness with LiS could seem weird to begin with, but it would be a little weirder yet if two of their three major follow-up titles revolved around that same setting again. Weird because they would kind of be competing against each other more directly, especially with a potentially relatively close release schedule? And because the studio would be working on two games with similar settings, yet probably unable for the most part to share resources between the two, seeing as how that would cheapen both products, or at the very least, connect them in a way they absolutely shouldn't want them to be connected (they should be strictly distinct IPs).

Dunno, might not be absurd to think they could release two American-small-town narrative-adventure games in the span of the next year or two, but it kind of feels off to me. Hence this Bandai game has me speculate that LiS2 could very well be a different setting.

Reminder that this is a thing.

>Bandai Namco has announced a new strategic partnership with Life is Strange developer Dontnod Entertainment, MCV can exclusively reveal. The new partnership will see the creation of a brand-new IP based on a new narrative adventure experience. More details about the game, including platforms, a release date and whether it will be boxed or digital, will be announced in 2018, but Bandai Namco has told us it will take place in a fictional city in the US and include "a fair dose of investigation." It's also been in production since 2016.

mcvuk.com/news/read/exclusive-bandai-namco-partners-with-dontnod-on-new-narrative-adventure-ip/0186186

...

...

>bot
when this meme will end

As was said last thread: Does anyone really think that if Chloe wrote Max, and Max didn't respond/stopped responding, that Chloe wouldn't mention it? Pay attention to the words spoken in the original, what is said and what is not said.

Unless you can find evidence from the original game that suggests what you're saying, then it likely did not happen.
Maybe BtS will explain it in a consistent way like Max getting a letter and intending to respond to it later but forgetting as time went on or Chloe not sending it to the correct address and so Max never actually got it. Maybe it will do something stupid and claim ambiguity where it does no really apply.

>Does anyone really think that if Chloe wrote Max, and Max didn't respond/stopped responding, that Chloe wouldn't mention it?
one of my biggest fears about BtS, if they tried to add alot of stuff that they didn't even mention or hint about in the first game just for Drama's sake.

>Does anyone really think that if Chloe wrote Max, and Max didn't respond/stopped responding, that Chloe wouldn't mention it?
Yes I can imagine that perfectly well.
Like someone else also said last thread: why would it matter if Max never responded or stopped after a few months? It was years ago.
Conversely I could ask "Does anyone really think if Chloe also never tried to contact Max Max wouldn't bring it up at least once in a conversation or in her own thoughts as a justification for herself?"

>Unless you can find evidence from the original game that suggests what you're saying, then it likely did not happen.
No, this is something that applies to you since you are the one making a claim. I'm not making any claims, to me it could have happened, it could have not. So it's on you to provide evidence that it is in fact the one way you claim it is and not the other.
Protip: Something not being brought up is not the evidence it didn't occur.

The same also applies to those who say
>Rachel cheated on Chloe
No, she didn't because they were not a couple. This is another area where some say it's ambiguous and so any answer can be correct. But they miss that Chloe never used words to describe Rachel as her girlfriend, lover, or even an ex. She never used the word "cheated" when referring to Rachel being with Frank. They excuse that by saying Chloe wouldn't tell Max she was dating a girl, which again there is no proof for.
Chloe is nothing but honest with Max and doesn't hide her feelings about things. She would use those terms if they were appropriate, she does not use them because they are not applicable.

You really need to accept there can be other interpretations both of characters and of events than your own.
I disagree with you on your interpretation of both of these.

It matters because already people are trying to purely blame Max for the five years of silence.

Chloe says all the things she's thinking in the car scene about why she's upset with Max.
She says Max didn't write or call her for five years, Max has been back to Arcadia Bay for a month, Max is back specifically to take classes at Blackwell. Chloe is not forgetful and would mention "Oh hey, I wrote you awhile back. Why didn't you respond?" or "Why did you stop responding?"

And here's an excerpt from Max's diary entry about herself, the very first introduction to Max you get in the game:
>I originally left behind Chloe, my "best friend forever" (at least until I left without talking to her once in five years)
Doesn't seem ambiguous to me. Seems more like Max and Chloe haven't talked since their final day together before Max left. Not once is there a mention of letters that were sent by either of them.

All you have to support your ideas are that things are ambiguous, as if that means you can just fill things in how you want them to be.
The game may not spell everything out clearly but it gives you enough to piece together at least some clues. You're not even using those and just making things up. If you have any real evidence then feel free to post it.

There is no evidence for the lack of such just like there is no evidence for its existence, but the impression of the original heavily implies that there was no correspondence. For me, I cannot imagine a scenario perfectly well where it would not have been brought up that Max never responded to actual attempts from Chloe, let alone stopped responding. "Respond" is never even brought up. They always say "contact".

>What do you say to your best friend after five years of silence? After finding out you saved her life in a bathroom? NOTHING. I feel so lame for not staying in touch… or even text.
"Five years of silence" at the very least means any exchange of letters can't have been going on. And why would Max not mention here that she literally didn't respond to letters from Chloe, not mention the letters anywhere at all? It's just one of many instances where the idea that Chloe had actually reached out seems awfully inconsistent with the choice of words and impression of the conversations.

You need to accept that not everything that is not outright confirmed with direct evidence is ambiguous and can be made out to be anything. I read Rachel's letter to Chloe and hear Chloe say she crushed on Rachel, and that is unambiguous enough already to know that the idea of them being in an established relationship is absurd. And so you think Chloe was searching desperately for her missing girlfriend... while at the same time having romantic pool adventures with Max, in which she literally says "I'm not Rachel's groupie"? Sorry user, either you have a completely different and ridiculous idea of who Chloe is, or you are delusional. She has no reason to hide this from Max, she in fact opens up about Rachel in the very first hours of them reuniting, and she absolutely would not casually say she's not "Rachel's groupie" to flirtingly respond to Max when she was in fact her actual romantical partner in a committed relationship.

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

I don't get the thought path I've been seeing lately from some posters. This isn't meant to be insulting or dismissive to their ideas, but I don't follow the chain of events they propose happened.

>Rachel's father is cheating on his wife and that will play some role in Rachel's character and the prequel's story
Okay. That's within the realms of possibility but I think there will also be more to it than just that.
>Rachel and Chloe become girlfriends.
It's never said by Chloe that's who Rachel was to her, and Rachel's letter/postcard don't suggest that, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for this discussion.
>Rachel cheated on Chloe with Frank, who she then cheated on Frank with Jefferson.
So if Rachel was pissed that her father was cheating, why would she cheat on her girlfriend?
>Chloe suspected Rachel and Frank were together and asked Rachel about it.
Why wouldn't Chloe say that was cheating if that's what it was?
>Chloe and Max have all their moments and fall for each other as we see during the game.
The final line of events with this way of thinking is then:
Rachel was pissed at her father for cheating, so she dated and cheated on Chloe (and Frank, and Jefferson), Chloe got pissed that Rachel cheated on her, but Chloe has technically been cheating on Rachel by doing what she has been doing with Max?

Am I just missing something? Or is every character just a two-timing hypocrite?

Girlfriends selfie!

As a reminder, Rachel's letter she supposedly never gave Chloe.

So in what reality again is it reasonable that Rachel would tell her girlfriend about a love interest, describe them to her, practically swoon over them, tell her about how they hooked up, how Chloe would want every detail and disapprove of that person as a partner? That's just absurd even if we do assume an open relationship (which in itself is completely ridiculous given Chloe's characterization, and basically outright denied, given her reaction).

Another fair point. Especially when we all know how possessive Chloe can be.

>It matters because already people are trying to purely blame Max for the five years of silence.
That's what the original game does though. It never tries to blame Chloe for the silence. The blame is always put on Max.

That's not how this works though. It's not a puzzle with one objective interpretation to be deducted. You don't have "evidence" that Chloe never using terms like "girlfriend", "cheated" is a "proof" they were never girlfriends and she didnt consider this cheating. It's just your interpretation that "Chloe is honest with Max so she would call things by the name". Well, I happen to disagree. It's not that Chloe isn't honest, but it's perfectly believable that she wouldn't feel obliged to disclose or want to talk about every detail of her relationships after the 2-3 days she's been with Max. You can see her opening up at times like during the morning after pool trip, but in general Chloe is pretty withdrawn emotionally and not very good at talking about her feelings, taking on the brash exterior instead. So yes it's perfectly believable she wouldn't want to talk details about "mushy shit" like actually being in love right off the bat.

>but the impression of the original heavily implies that there was no correspondence.
Alright then, assuming Max wrote in her journal she "left without talking to her once in five years" then them going with them exchanging some letters might be a small retcon. Though it falls into question if letters can be considered "talking". She could have wrote a snippet of similar quality like the "letter" AU Max wrote to crippled Chloe that you can find on her wall there. I wouldn't necessarily call that "talking".
About the "Chloe sent some letters but got no response", it wouldn't contradict anything though.

>And so you think Chloe was searching desperately for her missing girlfriend... while at the same time having romantic pool adventures with Max, in which she literally says "I'm not Rachel's groupie"?
I mean, you are kinda reading into that scene. Sure the context for us, the viewers could be read as romantic, but nothing inherently romantic happened in it, they were just having some fun at the pool. And what is the "not a Rachel groupie even supposed to prove"? Chloe tells Max she is amazing, to which asks "what about Rachel?". Chloe's response is supposed to express that her talking highly of Rachel doesnt mean she worships her and she can still think for herself.

There is a reason she says "this has to be my secret" in the end and the fact that she felt the need to write a letter about this that she would only give when Chloe wasnt around. Something she wanted to get off her chest really bad but couldn't bring herself to.
I mean the devs said this letter was supposedly about Jefferson and Frank also believed Rachel loved him. What if he was the person she felt she could confide in instead and she wrote him a letter like this that she knew she could never actually give? It doesn't sound as ridiculous then.

6 DAYS

I actually think it's a defeating point against the idea of them being a couple. Even Chloe's characterization and the nature of their relationship entirely aside, that letter screams unrequitted homo-sexual romantical interest. Rachel is telling Chloe about obsessing over and fucking a guy, come on folks.

That said, Deck Nine can show romantical and sexual tensions between them, and yeah, perhaps even a sort of fling. But anything beyond that is just so unreasonably inconsistent with this letter (and many more aspects of the original), that at that point, I'd call them out on making up shit to sell product.

>Chloe is pretty withdrawn emotionally and not very good at talking about her feelings
That's like... completely wrong. She has an armor she shields her highly emotional self with against the general world, yes, but once she is with someone she wants to trust, she spills everything, and is highly emotionally involved. She talks about feeling abandoned and Rachel in the very first moments she was with Max. She is intensely emotional and talks about her feelings a lot, with Max. Rachel specifically is an emotional topic that she gets into more than once. I really can't see where you are seeing the Chloe that would not only be secretive about this but at the same time openly admit to crushing on Rachel, loving her, finding her sexy and such, open up to Max about everything, but also do things such as flirt with and kiss Max, distancing herself from Rachel on numerous occasions.

>That's what the original game does though
Not really. Max didn't throw the blame back at Chloe because she knew it would just get thrown back at her. Perhaps why Chloe also drops the subject quickly.
Max blames herself because she shares part of the blame. She also blames herself for things she played no part in like Kate's situation.

>You don't have "evidence" that Chloe never using terms like "girlfriend", "cheated"
She didn't use those terms in regards to Rachel when they would have definitely fit the situation. That's proof enough. Not everything needs to be explicitly stated to be clearly true. The idea of "Nothing proves it otherwise" has been used to claim some pretty silly things in the past.

>It's just your interpretation that "Chloe is honest with Max so she would call things by the name"
Chloe hates dishonesty, that is definite. What reason does she have to hide a relationship from Max? She tells Max about embarrassing past phases and problems in her life.

>but in general Chloe is pretty withdrawn emotionally and not very good at talking about her feelings
>So yes it's perfectly believable she wouldn't want to talk details about "mushy shit" like actually being in love right off the bat.
She seems pretty open and doesn't hesitate very much to talk about things with Max. To everyone else Chloe is brash and apprehensive but she feels she can trust Max enough to let that down, with that trust comes honesty.
If there was something going on between Chloe and Rachel then it would have been said in no uncertain terms.

>it wouldn't contradict anything though
It would contradict a general impression that I got from the original. It would not directly contradict anything (that I can remember now), but then again, there's a lot of absolutely absurd things one could establish without it directly canonically contradicting anything.

This is not a big issue since it changes nothing about what happened later, and we'll have to wait on D9's specifics on it anyhow. So let's just drop the topic at this disagreement about whether it'd be reasonable.

>nothing inherently romantic happened in it
So basically you want to go on and say nothing was ever inherently romantic between Max and Chloe, even the kisses and stuff, right? Because otherwise, it would be Chloe cheating on Rachel, without qualms, and the argument stands.

Likewise, if you really don't see anything romantical about their pool interaction, let alone anything in their interactions at all, I feel sorry for you.

>And what is the "not a Rachel groupie even supposed to prove"?
That Chloe is not in a commited romantical relationship with her. I don't understand how you cannot see that it is absolutely not reasonable to casually, flirtingly say "I'm not X's groupie" when they are your partner.

>There is a reason she says "this has to be my secret"
It says maybe this has to be my secret [because] you're right. Right about how bad of a partner that guy might be for her. That's not something you tell your girlfriend.

Sorry user, I really really cannot empathize with you on that one. It seems positiviely delusional to me to read and justify that letter with the idea that they were a couple.

>She talks about feeling abandoned and Rachel in the very first moments she was with Max.
Yes, in that moment she is explaining to Max, and the player, who Rachel was to her. It's important she would give at least a bit of background.

>Rachel specifically is an emotional topic that she gets into more than once.
She mentions her more than once, but aside of mentioning how much fun they had and how she wishes Rachel was here, I never felt she went into detail on their relationship, on the contrary it seemed to me she would always handwave the topic.

>That's proof enough.
Not really.
>Not everything needs to be explicitly stated to be clearly true.
That works in reverse too.
>Chloe hates dishonesty, that is definite. What reason does she have to hide a relationship from Max?
Not elaborating =/= hiding.
Again, they've been together for 3 days. It's not like they are planning a wedding. Chloe isn't obliged to mention how she munched a rug or two in Max's absence.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say Rachel was well aware of how Chloe felt but simply didn't feel the same way. At the same time, Rachel didn't want to hurt her friend and maybe tried to let Chloe down easily, but Chloe couldn't just change her feelings with the flip of a switch. They tried to go back to being friends but since they already possibly took the step of hooking up (or it was proposed at some point), things always had a bit of tension between them. Rachel trying to move past it and Chloe hoping it would happen again and become more.
Rachel's letter shows a trust she had in Chloe with the ability to be that open, but the fear of what could happen if it was sent prevented her delivering it. Even though I don't get why Rachel would be scared, maybe Chloe would be upset but she would realize it's not her place to object. Hell, it would probably even make Chloe suspicious of Jefferson and may have saved Rachel's life.

>It's important she would give at least a bit of background.
So now you are saying this instant, complete, emotional opening-up of Chloe to Max was in there for game purposes, and doesn't build Chloe's characterization? That's ridiculous. Chloe is absolutely honest with Max, emotionally and otherwise, she is emotionally particularly expressive, and even more so regarding Rachel. I really can't see a reason in the narrative nor her character for her not to mention that they had been or let alone still technically were girlfriends.

>I never felt she went into detail on their relationship
She talked about how they slept over at her place, their plans for the future, what Rachel wanted, what she was good at, that Max would have liked her and vice-versa. I soo no secrecy or reason to be secretive at all, and really, if that was an intention, dontnod would have actually written that into the story, used hints and dialogue at times to point at this idea that Chloe is not comfortable revealing this to Max. But they didn't. She is open, in casual settings and dramatically emotional ones alike, and she never says anything even implying they were a couple.

twitter.com/HannahTelle/status/900832558627381250

>a special surprise

In those few days, Chloe tells Max:
>Shad a boytoy phase
>She smokes and drinks
>Nathan drugged and assaulted her
>She owes money to a drug dealer
>Answers negatively to the question of if she ever slept with that drug dealer
>That she and Rachel had plans to run away to LA
>Her darkest fears that no one cares about her and people will always hurt her
Just what about "Oh by the way, Rachel's my girlfriend" crosses the line that it would be something too personal to mention to Max?
Come on, at least use some consistency and logic with this.

>So basically you want to go on and say nothing was ever inherently romantic between Max and Chloe, even the kisses and stuff, right? Because otherwise, it would be Chloe cheating on Rachel, without qualms, and the argument stands.
It's not that at all. There was definitely attraction and chemistry in their interactions throughout the game. And the came was building towards a possibly romantic conclusion. Especially from Max's side. I don't think that they did anything that could be considered "cheating" until the very ending though. And even then you could have interpreted the Bay kiss as a "goodbye you are dying anyway so have this at least"
And about Chloe being in a comitted relationship throughout all of that which would make her a "cheater" as well, it doesn't at all have to be that.
Again, her situation could have mirrored Frank's. They could have had some kind of relationship, she could believe Rachel still loved her, but they could have been taking a "break".

>So now you are saying this instant, complete, emotional opening-up of Chloe to Max
No I just don't think it means as much as you apparently think it means. Plus, Chloe stutters, talks quickly and in general to me it seems like she feels awkward and wants to be over with it talking about who Rachel was to her and prefers to move on to talking about her disappearance.

>She talked about how they slept over at her place, their plans for the future, what Rachel wanted, what she was good at, that Max would have liked her and vice-versa.
Talking about Rachel and talking about "her and Rachel" are different. Chloe also doesn't straight up tell Max she "loved" her until she shouts that to Frank in an argument and later when they discover her dead. Doesn't mean she wanted to "hide" it from Max.

Half of these even arent related to feelings and most of these are revealed through Max's direct inquiries. Max never asked "so anyway what was Rachel to you exactly?" Maybe she would have gotten an answer. But the only thing that comes close is her making a statement "sounds like you crushed on her" to which Chloe replies "you would have too" handwaving the thing. Even if you want to assume everything between them was strictly one sided, that was not being fully honest already. It was not just a silly crush, she was actually in love with Rachel. (and Max can see it without needing details)

>Max and Chloe are sitting on the bench and watching the sunset together.
>Chloe thinks this is a nice moment and wraps her arm around Max.
>Max scoots a little closer.
>Chloe looks into Max's eyes.
>They both know what's going to happen and feel the butterflies start.
>They start bringing their faces closer together and closing their eyes.
>Rachel suddenly pops up behind them and in a singsong voice goes "sha la la la. Don't be shy..."
>Their eyes bolt open, Max quickly moves herself away from Chloe.
>Moment ruined.
>Max tries not to laugh, Chloe goes red in the face and curses Rachel.
>Rachel gives a smirk.
>Max suggests they go back to the dorms, watch some movies, and have pizza.
>Chloe says only if Rachel pays.
>The three start walking back to Chloe's truck, Max and Chloe holding hands.
>Chloe leans over and gives Chloe a peck on the lips.
>Rachel catches it out of the corner of her eye and smiles.

>Especially from Max's side
I think the outright-romantical attraction was especially obvious from Chloe's side. Max's was the same tremendous love, but less outright-romantically so, until later on. Which is in-line with Max discovering and understanding things about herself and each other Chloe had already discovered. But I disgress.

>goodbye you are dying anyway so have this at least
So you actually are one of those "Eh, I guess it can be considered romantical" sort of people. It's obviously romantical, and intensely so in a few scenes - especially from Chloe's side, who has no inhibitions about it in the way of "What about Rachel?", which she absolutely would have had had they been a couple.

>They could have had some kind of relationship
This depends entirely on any specifics, which again, we'll have to actually wait for BtS for. I was specifically arguing against the notion they had been in a commited romantical relationship throughout the years, and particularly, that they still had been at the time of Rachel's disappearance.

>Plus, Chloe stutters, talks quickly and in general to me it seems like she feels awkward and wants to be over with it talking about who Rachel was to her
I didn't get this impression at all. I guess we can again agree to disagree, but it doesn't change anything about the fact that Chloe is to Max a very emotional and open person. As argues, I really don't understand what about "Rachel and I were a couple" is so dramatic to you that it would have not only not been mentioned, but actively held in secrecy when things such as "I crushed on Rachel", "she rescued me from boys", "she was sexy", "I loved her", etc. were casually and readily, as well as emotionally and dramatically revealed.

>Doesn't mean she wanted to "hide" it from Max.
She does call her her "angel" at the first opportunity. She doesn't hide that Rachel was special to her from Max.

You guys know hannah telle will be streaming at 4 pm PST? Just letting you guys know if you even care. If any of you besides me go there please dont embarrass us and give us a bad name in chat.

Should I buy before the Storm or just watch YouTubers

>No I just don't think it means as much as you apparently think it means.
So you think she is an emotionally withdrawn person and not open to Max? Have we played the same game? Hell, have we seen the same footage of your so-beloved BtS in which Chloe opens up about most of anything in an emotional meltdown to a pissy, stand-offish Rachel on day 1 of them spending time together?

Chloe is not an emotionally withdrawn person, and she talks about her feelings explicitly and openly to people she wants to trust. Her armor with which she shields herself and withdraws is a coping mechanism because her want for trust had been "betrayed". But she is desperate, in need of trust and emotional intimacy, and Max is the perfect person with which she falls back into this immediately. This is a defining aspect of her characterization as well as that of their relationship, that you try to play it down so as to justify the idea that she would have not been comfortable revealing that she and Rachel were a couple is beyond ridiculous.

>So you actually are one of those "Eh, I guess it can be considered romantical" sort of people.
No it's more like I see the 5 days as a beginning of something, not a conclusion of something and the kiss itself is like "i know the girl you loved is dead and all this shit happened and Im traumatized myself and i wish we could heal together but we will never have the chance to, this is the last time i'll see you so I will kiss you now because it's the one and only chance I get"
Which is why unlike some people I'm actually glad Bae doesn't end in a kiss. There's no doubt their relationship could end up romantic, but with all the hurt and trauma they went through during the week I doubt with the knowledge they aren't in any immediate danger they would be in a mood for kissing. But that's by the way

>I really don't understand what about "Rachel and I were a couple" is so dramatic to you that it would have not only not been mentioned, but actively held in secrecy when things such as "I crushed on Rachel", "she rescued me from boys", "she was sexy"
I dunno maybe im projecting on some level but the whole "will talk how much i like someone and crush on them but wont ever admit it's that deep" makes a lot of sense to me.
There's also the fact that from a meta perspective, in general Dontnod crafted the game in a way that it was clearly about romance, but you'd notice how the words "girlfriend, boyfriend, gay, lesbian, "I love you" were never actually used. It was deliberetaly ambiguous enough to make you think something was going on between all these characters, but never outright explicit so people who wanted to not see it could claim they never noticed anything.
So even if the opportunity was right and Chloe wanted to use something like "Rachel and I were a couple" I don't think she would be allowed to.
Just like Max's "I love you" is cut even if you can clearly tell she loves Chloe anyway.

>So you think she is an emotionally withdrawn person and not open to Max?
No, I think there is a difference between breaking down before a person you know you can trust about how you think your life is shit and detailing every little bit of your life to that someone, especially when it comes to "touchy" subjects like "love".

this actually looks like I could be really cool if they learned some lessons on what not to do from LiS

>No it's more like I see the 5 days as a beginning of something, not a conclusion of something
Then we view the game completely differently. I see romance and healing in it, a brilliantly complementary dynamic in their relationship that has them grow throughout and ultimately overcome all obstacles together, a deeply touching sentimenality, love, a meaningfulness and powerfulness, for their characters and the narrative world built around them. Again, I feel sorry that you don't see real romance and the healing and overcoming strength in their story, but think of it as something that could maybe lead into something like that.

I'm also sure we have completely different ideas on what Rachel was to Chloe. At this point, I think it's better to stop this discussion for a fundamental disagreement that goes beyond the indeed relatively benign question of "were Chloe and Rachel at any point couple?" and "did Chloe send Max letters?". Hope we'll have much to talk about once BtS rolls out though.

>but you'd notice how the words "girlfriend, boyfriend, gay, lesbian, "I love you" were never actually used.
Well, some of them were. Boyfriend is. Max talks about love with regards to Chloe in her journal. Chloe outright says she loves Max.

I get where you are coming from, but again, Chloe not mentioning this seems without-reason to me, and furthermore, is just one of those major aspects (like the letter) that just don't at all fit in with the idea of them as a couple.

Would I reject BtS as canon based on that? Nah. Depending on what they do with it, I will call it making shit up (because hey, they actually are, you know), but if it's good and I can dig it, I will even join you in arguing how it could possibly fit in with the original.

actually wish these are leaks for lis2, want to lie to my friend and say it is.

I think it's fairly obvious that the writers didn't want to outright say Chloe had a romantic relationship with Rachel because first of all, it's not necessary to Max and Chloe's story, and second, because that kind of ambiguity is useful in writing. If you explicitly state everything characters are thinking or did in the past, then it's pretty boring for the audience because there's no room to use their imagination to fill in the holes. On the other hand, I think LiS went overboard on leaving things ambiguous in other places. For instance, at the end of the game, Max's "I love you" line should have stayed in and the journal entry about the final choice, "Is this the power of love or friendship?" should have been cut. That's where it's a kind of forced ambiguity that doesn't serve the story. I get that they wanted their oh so precious, "player choice", but that's not how you do it. I hope that BtS will avoid that kind of mistake.

>I see romance and healing in it, a brilliantly complementary dynamic in their relationship that has them grow throughout and ultimately overcome all obstacles together
Well I can see healing in the sense that being with Chloe heals Max's inferiority complex and being with Max heals Chloe's abandonment issues and depression and as such there's no doubt there's a complementary dynamic to their relationship, however as far as "healing from the events of the past week" goes? They could help each other overcome that, eventually, sure, but no way getting over digging up the body of someone you loved or getting over seeing death and destruction all around you and almost dying can be dealt with immediately just because someone is there for you, a kindred soul or not. These girls would probably need years of therapy realistically.

>Max talks about love with regards to Chloe in her journal.
Yeah journal definitely could get away with more than the "spoken" lines. But even then the "She's more than my best friend [...] is it the power of friendship, or love?" ie things straight up explicit that you cant easily rationalize as "gal pals" comes up at the very end. Meanwhile anything too explicit like "I'd do anything just to wake up next to you" they decided against adding. Then there's the fact even the Bay kiss isn't that easy to "get". I saw people who played the game once being surprised year or so later about its existence. So yeah it definitely seems to me that the whole time they were trying to eat their cake and keep it too with the whole "same sex relationships" issue.

...

>realistically
But it's not a realistical story in that sense, certainly not in the conveying of its ending's sentiments. Rachel, Chloe does overcome symbolically and emotionally in the story. She bears her literal death together with Max, Max holding her through it, Chloe's anger and grief over it later washed away by concern for and loyalty to Max, ultimately concluding with her acceptance that it should not have happened to Rachel but did, and that she and Max belong together, always did. Again, I'm sure we have different ideas on what Rachel is to Chloe and the story overall, what purposes she has had in LiS, but Rachel is one thing Chloe overcomes with and thanks to Max, in multiple senses.

Likewise, the entire abandonment complex, how William and David play into it, and a bunch of other, defining issues of both Max and Chloe are narratively and emotionally, powerfully resolved between them and overcome together. This as an integral narrative purpose of their story. And yes, even the traumas of the week they prevail through and ultimately overcome together. Max literally overcomes her worst nightmares with, for and thanks to Chloe; Chloe prevails over her literal death with and thanks to Max. And the destruction of the town they leave behind finding comfort in each other in the end.

>trying to eat their cake and keep it too
To an extent I'd agree, especially given how they've presented themselves and their game in interviews. But it was more so the "player choice" cake than the "homoromantic" cake. Because you have to be a homophobic dumdum not to see same-sex romanticism in the game. Like, no, that kiss in the Bay ending is not platonic, however much your neckbeard tries to tell you it is (this is not directed at you). Dontnod have gone on record saying they are romantically involved, sport banners and avatars of them making out, retweet explicit fanart. The game is touchingly romantical, a love story, even if some have trouble seeing it.

Yeah I guess it's a matter of interpretation, I generally agree with the core of yours, the difference is you seem to see definites in both the story and character arcs, while I see "promises of good things to come".
I definitely can't imagine them post Bae as already over everything they went through with only sunshine and rainbows ahead.

Any songs you guys want to hear in bts or just songs that fit the life is strange vibe in general?
Think this one fits it great!~
youtube.com/watch?v=Xg8Ckamh8Gw

Maybe wait for the first episode, watch the episode on youtube and judge it on that?

How do you even get that line, I never got it.

>I definitely can't imagine them post Bae as already over everything they went through with only sunshine and rainbows ahead.
That's not strictly what the sentiment is about. But it is absolutely about the idea that they have fought through, healed from and overcome a lot together, started to overcome and heal from the most terrible things, and can overcome everything, through their love, the strength of their bond. The narrative meaningfulness and powerfulness of their relationship, that literally transcends time, that is more meaningful and powerful than time, death, tragedy, the biggest adversaries and adversities from within and without. It establishes this love and its power and meaning with narrative purpose, as its primary narrative purpose, if you ask me. The notion of yours that it "could maybe lead into something like that" is just flat as fuck and narratively, romantically and emotionally deaf, to me.

But sure, I will have to admit that my reading is a rather specific reading, a specifically romantical reading, and that the question of Rachel and Chloe as a couple plays into my reading in a very specific sense, and that's why I'm interested in that topic of BtS as an "issue" at all. LiS I think did something with her that I've grown to appreciate a lot in the context of a larger narrative that I love, but ultimately, I'm not really all that bothered by whatever BtS can or will do; my understanding of and investment into LiS is largely unaffected by it, and so I can indulge in other people's interpretations and ideas of these characters. I mean, playing BtS is mostly that, indulging in Deck Nine's interpretations and ideas.

>it's hard for me to ship pricefield

Well I wouldn't call it "flat as fuck" or "emotionally deaf", just a bit more grounded. But that's me not seeing the story as this timeless epic of love that transcends time and space or whatever pretty, flowery language you want to depict is as.
Just a story of two girls with a strong bond put in terrifying circumstances, trying to make some sense out of all the chaos around.

maybe she wil voice Max in the bonus episode?

The last BtS trailer made the whole thing with Rachel look way beyond friendship though

Yeah, again, pretty fundamentally different views. For one thing, I don't think they are merely "put" there, in a sense of something that is around them, foreign to them as that, but that all of it is in a narrative sense pointing back to them, a result and purpose of them, their story, of their bond, love, sprung from and built around that.

I see a lot in a lot of it, and specifically a lot of romantical significance. So while the idea of Chloe and Rachel as a serious couple for instance from a more grounded perspective really shouldn't be an issue at all, it would interfere in a way with my perspective on what the narrative and particularly romantical significance of "Rachel" is, to LiS.

Let's stick to whatever BtS will bring, where then we can keep scuffling over canonical consistency/reasonability and such! As I've said, I'm actually pretty open to take BtS as what it is, wants to be and say, anyway. I actually hope it can really stand to a significant extent on its own legs like that.

So what's the announcement /lisg/?

...

she's live right now and talked about how she don't really ship pricefield, and answered some general questions, but no surprise yet

>don't really ship pricefield

wtf
why she doesn't

...

>don't really ship pricefield

>Why she doesn't choose the flawed non logic choice

Brooke looks ugly asf, no wonder she acts like a bitch

please don't tell me she ships max with the cuck

How is he a cuck, and don't pull that dumbass fact sheet, it doesn't work that way

It's Kate's sister. Bully.

She said she can only ship Max with who she herself would choose, and Hannah is a straight Christian with a crush on cuteboi Warren.

you're right, he's not a cuck
to get ''cucked'', he must be in a relationship first, which he wasn't

What's her name, Alice junior?

I do believe Rachel would be a big, obnoxiously and perfectly teasing Pricefield shipper.

pricefieldcucks btfo

>Hannah is a straight Christian

What did she announce?

...

Pricefield is canon regardless of what the VAs says.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=4aeETEoNfOg

This song maybe, for something fun, like skating and hanging with Rachel and the skater boys at Blackwell, at dusk, toking, exchanging sexy glances with Rachel and playfully shooting down flirting attempts from the guys. Ending with Chloe walking Rachel back to the dorms alone, where the tensions of the scene beforehand get a chance to grow a bit more serious, but Rachel breaks the spell in some effortlessly dismissive way and they say goodbye and goodnight

This is Max, an everyday hero.

Say something nice about her!

Stop making threads on /v/

Also a mental case

She's cuddly and sometimes she kisses my forehead.

Her gallery outfit really is good looking, and she's beautiful.

And her entry did deserve to win.

>waaah waaah Pricefield is canon. Even if the writers and developers say it's not. waaaah waaah waaah

Fuck you, you whiny baby. You're the reason I wish there was a mode where you could play as David and kick the shit out of the libtards that love this game. Chloe deserved to be smacked around. I bet you're all beta bitches like the tranny faggot. Warren triggers you bitches because you realize you're all him.

She's not as quite retarded as her "girlfriend."

...

It's okay if you don't ship them, they ship themselves with each other and that's all that matters. Nothing will stop them.
Pricefield FOREVER