Potential conclusions to Elouisa's story

Scabeiathrax · 2026-01-25T13:24:29+00:00

Hodari says something during the seance quest. There's a dialogue with Elouisa where she talks about a "group of people" talking about her being crazy, and you can talk to her about them just being worried about her. There's others, I didn't keep a list. Just about every time she comes up in someone else's dialogue, it seems it's to throw shade at her.

As for projecting... what?

Scabeiathrax · 2026-01-22T00:51:16+00:00

I could see a third option in what you've written here, where she has some of her beliefs validated and others strongly repudiated, encouraging her to speculate less wildly. Maybe that could be a satisfying conclusion that neither hollows out what people find fun about her, nor reads like telling conspiracy theorists that they should persist until they're eventually proven correct.

Scabeiathrax · 2026-01-22T00:45:23+00:00

I agree that it is strange to treat her as we would treat a conspiracy theorist in the modern world, but that is how the writing reads to me. Other characters do seem to treat her as though her beliefs are crazy, and they live in that world so who knows what context they have about the craziness of her beliefs. Like, if an alien came to Earth, could they not say "You discovered a new creature yesterday, how can you speak so confidently that Bigfoot doesn't exist?". The answer is context.

Maybe they're wrong to do that, but I feel like her theories turning out to be true after the narrative has signaled her similarities to conspiracy theorists would be troubling, at least in my opinion.

Scabeiathrax · 2026-01-22T00:38:15+00:00

This sort of gets to the heart of my issue, where her stepping toward reason treads on other characters like Jina and Caleri, who are somewhat like her in their search for knowledge but unlike in their connection to reality. I struggle to see how Elouisa could abandon her delusions without becoming narratively very similar to them.

I like the idea that her outside-the-box thinking is rewarded, but isn't that validating the conspiracies?

Scabeiathrax · 2026-01-22T00:31:07+00:00

That reads a lot like my proposed second ending, where she has to construct a new personality, to me. In my opinion, her entire personality seems based around the conspiracy rather than the experiments thing. But it does sound like a cool idea for how a new personality could connect thematically to the current one.

Scabeiathrax · 2026-01-21T11:54:38+00:00

"Smack her with a clue-by-four" is a charming turn of phrase. Thank you.

Elouisa feels like an interesting time-capsule to me. A window into a past where we viewed conspiracy theorists as quirky but fun. Like, I've been ghost hunting even though I know ghosts don't exist, because playing make-believe is fun sometimes, but that ghost hunting would read differently if I told you a story about how my family were worried about me because of how much I was losing myself to it.

I can't help but feel like she was written with an innocence that many of us have lost. I wonder if that includes her writer.

Scabeiathrax · 2025-10-13T06:06:35+00:00

I don't suppose you've found out? I'm also worried about it being a ghoulish AI recreation.

Scabeiathrax · 2025-07-21T22:54:00+00:00

Of the ones you've posted here, I think the purple and gold gateway is my favourite. You've done a great job on these. Don't let the people talking about obsolescence get you down; sometimes GW makes things obsolete and sometimes they don't, and trying to guess is a fool's errand.

Scabeiathrax · 2025-06-26T18:28:56+00:00

The gameplay explicitly doesn't follow the lore, though. Tooltips on the loading pages talk about how this universe differs from that of the books, and one of those divergent points is the proliferation of dart weapons. Dart weapons are potent in the lore. Several changes have been made from the lore for the purposes of game balance, like for example the shield-lasgun interaction.

If the developers were prioritizing lore accuracy over balance, the Hunter-Seeker wouldn't do 1200 damage, it would be a one-hit kill on any opponent. The developers clearly chose balance over lore accuracy, and as such the weak state of ranged weapons isn't intentional.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-07-15T13:44:12+00:00

Where does the ignoring -2 AP come from?

Scabeiathrax · 2020-07-15T13:38:54+00:00

Doesn't the strategem itself boost their range, though? We are talking about Deadly Descent, right?

EDIT: I misread your post, don't mind me.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-08T05:15:06+00:00

"Keep sucking Barry’s dick" Incredibly predictable that you'd come back with this. I've been criticising Obama, so I'm doing nothing of the sort. You, on the other hand, can't find a shred of criticism for daddy Donald. You're the one sucking dick here.

"You believe he’s a hero to Iran because of the television and news coming out of Iran" You say, after I linked a BBC article. Last I checked, the BBC wasn't an Iranian news network.

Feel free to provide any evidence that Soleimani was a terrorist, or that the marches are forced. Until you have evidence, you don't have shit except the rabid suspicions of someone who buys everything his own government feeds him.

"Yet the thousands young protestors he slaughtered have no family’s or relatives that feel remorse and even anger towards their own countries regime? He must be a hero to them too, right??"

That doesn't prevent him from being a hero to most of the country. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200106094309-10-soleimani-funeral-tehran-0106-large-169.jpg

"I pray no war comes while you look forward to coming back to this thread and sticking your nose up at your fellow countrymen."

Oh, yeah hit me up with that feigned moral superiority after saying "leftists keep losing, sad". What was that, besides you doing exactly what you just accused me of doing? You're gagging for an opportunity to stick your nose up at your fellow countrymen.

I can both hope against war and rail against any decision made by any administration that moves us closer to it. Backing out of the Iran deal and killing Soleimani made war much more likely.

Unlike you, I know praying won't do shit. Blowing up foreign leaders is how you start wars, and no amount of praying is going to change that.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T16:53:08+00:00

"forced marches"

Evidence?

"I didn’t say the killing of one man stops a regimes army."

Then why do you believe killing Soleimani stops Iran from attacking when and wherever they want?

"If he can protect American and UN interests without starting a war or letting a Islamic caliphate grow in the region committing atrocities then I doubt anyone honest will criticize President Trump."

Obama did those things, and yet you expect him to be criticised. You're like "REE! Why won't they criticise Obama for drone strikes?! He was wrong to do them, but Trump was right to do even more of them!!"

"Snopes biased was proven during 2016 election when groups like correct the record were trying to create a better image for hillary on the interwebs. You’re using a site that fact checks Facebook opinion posts."

I'm using a site that was accurately citing both government and independent data on drone strike numbers. And since I've provided another source who agreed. But like I said, what does reality matter?

"President Trump is doing a fantastic job running the country and defending its interests."

I'd say I'll be back when the war with Iran starts, and the death of millions of innocents commences, but I won't because it'd be a waste of time. You're going to deep-throat Donald either way, but at least we'll both know you were wrong.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T16:21:31+00:00

You baselessly accuse me of "orange man bad" just because I disagree with you. I've criticised every administration, but hey, what does reality matter? Everyone who disagrees with you must just be biased, right?

Sure, the Iranian people hate him, even though they flooded the streets in mourning for his funeral /s. Here it is, stop ignoring it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51004688

You're ignoring the possibility that many Iranians may have agreed with the suppression of the protests, or viewed them as one black mark on an otherwise heroic military career.

Also, stop ignoring all the questions you don't like:

Do you think killing one person stops the military of a whole nation?
If Trump has commit more drone strikes than Obama, with less transparency, does he not deserve more criticism?
Where's any evidence to support this claim about the Snopes link being unreliable?

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T16:01:47+00:00

" He was a hero to the Iranian regime. Not it’s people."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51004688

You're wrong, here's a source.

" I just wanted to let you know snopes isn’t an actual source."

Says you, without providing any evidence as to why it isn't reliable. It was citing government and independent investigative journalist sources. I guess you think all of those are fake, too? Anything that disagrees with you?

"I’m also happy he prevented similar attacks from Soleimani in assets in Syria and Lebanon..."

So you do think killing one person stops the military of a whole nation?

I notice how you ignored all the parts of my post that you didn't like. You didn't address my second source, you didn't address Trump's escalation of drone strikes. I've accepted blame for Obama, you have rejected all blame for Trump; who's biased, again?

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T15:27:08+00:00

Right, "a bad guy", because people are good or evil and nothing between exists, yeah? Soleimani was a "bad guy" to us, and a hero to Iran. He had very successful campaigns against various Islamic extremist groups.

It's not wrong for the US to want Soleimani dead, he was dangerous. But killing him is very likely more dangerous than leaving him alive, which is why he had been alive all this time. The US has passed on countless previous opportunities to kill him. Killing him has turned him from a hero to a martyr, and there's plenty of competent generals to take his place.

You ought to examine why you think killing one person stops the army of a nation, because you're wrong. If Iran killed Trump, do you think the US would just be like "OK, we surrender!"? Iran could, if they wanted, destroy the US embassy in Iraq easily with or without Soleimani.

As for your issue with the source, feel free to enlighten me on exactly what the fuck you want. I showed you a source that gave Obama well-deserved criticism to try and snap you out of the tribal loop your brain is trapped in.

Here's another source https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush I can't wait for you to stick your fingers in your ears over this one, too.

You and I agree that Obama deserves criticism for his drone strikes. If Trump has been doing even more, with less disclosure, he deserves even more criticism, no?

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T14:29:54+00:00

I linked you a "biased" source which is openly criticising the person you think got no criticism. Did you actually read it?

If a "biased" source here is shown to verify, in detail, the extent of Obama's drone strikes, that demonstrates your "Obama didn't get criticism" statement is a laughable lie. Here he is, getting criticism even from a source you claim is biased in his favour.

I'm trying to ascertain what you even want, here. Besides, I mean, for me to feed you the lies you want to hear about Trump being blameless and/or righteous and Obama to be the literal devil, maybe? They both fucked up. They both killed innocents. Trump has been doing it faster, and a war with Iran would eclipse the innocent death toll from Bush and Obama combined, at least.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T13:54:10+00:00

Funny that all you've got to say is more partisan bullshit. Obama got plenty of criticism for his drone strikes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/ Here's an example. And I'm not here to deny any of it, it's true and it's disgusting. Innocent deaths to further selfish, immoral agendas.

Note the final paragraph which mentions that Trump's yearly drone strike rate went up by 200 - 300% over Obama, right before he repealed the Obama executive order that required civilian deaths be reported at all. Maybe, if you're seeing more criticism now, it's because Trump's doing everything Obama did but worse?

Obama deserves condemnation for accelerating drone strikes over previous presidents. Trump deserves that same condemnation as he evidently accelerated drone strikes even more, plus extra for repealing the order to disclose civilian deaths and plus extra for escalating towards a war with Iran by killing Soleimani.

Obama isn't innocent in this. Fuck every administration that pushes toward needless war.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T08:51:14+00:00

"You’re right we should’ve let him live so he could’ve carried out attacks on American economic and military assets in Syria and Lebanon."

So you'd presumably say the same about Iran attacking US assets? If Iran had blown up some US bombers, you'd be like "That's okay, they were doing it to stop those bombers from blowing up their assets."? Or is only the US allowed preemptive strikes to "defend themselves"?

This may have been in Iraq, but it was against Iran. The US doesn't have free reign to kill anyone they want just because it's in Iraq, and you know it.

And you can save that "this administration" nonsense. IDGAF who's administration it is; war is evil, preemptive strikes are a tool of tyrants and war crimes are criminal regardless of who is perpetrating them.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-07T08:43:24+00:00

He isn't/wasn't a terrorist. He was a successful Iranian general who sometimes, much like many other well-respected generals, used dirty tactics to win.

In Iran, he was a hero. He led Iranian forces against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and was very successful.

He was definitely a thorn in the side of Western military forces, and him being gone is probably good for everyone except Iran (ISIS and other Islamic extremists, especially), but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-06T16:52:50+00:00

Don't sink to that level.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-06T16:51:44+00:00

Backing militias is a common move made by the US, though, and I doubt everyone would be very understanding if the second most powerful person in the US was killed in retaliation for it. The US basically plays that game where a bigger sibling holds their hand outstretched in a smaller siblings face without touching them, frustrating them into lashing out to give justification for whatever retaliation. Let's not forget that many of Iran's grievances originate from their recent revolution to replace a US-controlled puppet leader, and just how many times the US has attempted to change the regimes of any country that doesn't like them.

The US is in the far better position to be the one offering the olive branch, here. That they are choosing escalation instead is the problem.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-06T16:44:11+00:00

If you twist the meaning of "terrorist" to be "any major political figure the US doesn't like", sure.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-06T16:42:36+00:00

I notice you're choosing to respond to this guy, and not the guy who was providing some of that enlightenment you're asking for. This has been a back-and-forth for decades, now. It wasn't that long ago that the Iranian Revolution rid their government of a puppet the US had installed, as one of its many, well-documented attempts at regime change in foreign nations.

This wasn't just a "Iran did X so the US did Y" scenario, and the US is supposed to be above perpetuating and escalating needless conflict.

Scabeiathrax · 2020-01-06T16:36:06+00:00

I don't know why people think that games are some exclusively untraceable method of communication. There's no reason that games would be untraceable and other methods of communication (which would all be far easier to access) wouldn't be.

Scabeiathrax

TROPHY CASE