jmoak3 7 sep 2012 om 11:07nm
Anita and Robot Arms. Spoilers of course.
When she's peeling oranges, she clearly has no robot arm and leg. When she's holding a gun in your face, she does.
Anyone else wonder what this could mean?
Could the Anita trying to kill you in that room be the same Anita?
Laatst bewerkt door jmoak3; 7 sep 2012 om 11:41nm
1-7 van 7 reacties weergegeven
< >
Cheff the Quack 8 sep 2012 om 9:54vm 
I have a couple theories for the two concepts.

Numbers represent what we see
Letters represent theories

1. She has robotic limbs.
A. The motorcycle scene takes place before the airport scene, and she assumedly lost those limbs in the crash. For all we know, the playable character (assuming there's just one) has some robotic limbs as well.
B. She's always had the fake limbs, but maybe she wears fake skin or a different set of prostetics so they don't freak people out or blow her cover to anyone looking to arrest her.

2. She's trying to shoot at you constantly.
A. You're not the same person in the airport scene as you are in most of the other scenes. (I like this theory the most because it's made me think a lot)
B. She's really niffed about the motorcycle crash. (unlikely)
C. That breif flash to that other woman on the bed of the hotel room meant that, after you and Anita got drunk at the party scene, you took that other woman back to the room thinking that it was Anita. Anita got more than jealous, I guess, but I prefer to think that the other woman on the bed was the main character during that scene. Also, Anita trying to kill you over this is still pretty unlikely.
D. The main character sold out the other two, which was why the heist failed. I guess the character regretted it and came back to save them, but could only rescue Borges.

There's always more possibilities than this, but these are the ones that cross my mind the most. Hope I provided some food for thought.
Laatst bewerkt door Cheff the Quack; 8 sep 2012 om 9:57vm
Nothing Goes Over My Head 9 sep 2012 om 10:45vm 
I wold personally go with A, helps to establish a sort of timeline between all the scenes
RobinOttens 10 sep 2012 om 5:06vm 
The other woman on the bed is the woman who was standing outside the wedding party looking bored. She's the same woman who shoots the player character in gravitybone. Making me think that in Thirty Flights, after the party she seduces the drunk player character (Citizen Abel?) and probably causes whatever went wrong at the airport. Anita knows, and is ♥♥♥♥ed and jealous at the player for falling for it.

I don't know what's up with the robot arm, I didn't notice that. Thought it was just some mecha-glove thing part of her gear. But the motorcycle crash theory sounds cool, would give that scene a place in the timeline.

How much time is between the wedding and the airport? Feels like a year or two to me. Does the bar/hideout take place inbetween?
Laatst bewerkt door RobinOttens; 10 sep 2012 om 5:09vm
Koskis 14 sep 2012 om 5:29vm 
This one's an extremely interesting point for me. I guess I'll have to play the game for the fifth time now and come back here with my theories...
Laatst bewerkt door Koskis; 15 sep 2012 om 3:09vm
Mr. Pink 15 feb 2013 om 4:40nm 
My theory is that the person that is the player in the wedding and motocycle scene is the same person that is the player at Gravity Bone, and the player at the airport is the woman that kills you at gravity bone. and that woman appears (in TFOL) in 2 other parts of the game, at Anita's intro. the first time, she is at a podium with anita and another woman like her, like her twin (that could even be the player. it would explain why anita is trying to shot you,cause she tought that you are the "bad" twin.)
moreaboutcrows 26 mrt 2013 om 7:09vm 
Origineel geplaatst door Cheff:
1. She has robotic limbs.
A. The motorcycle scene takes place before the airport scene, and she assumedly lost those limbs in the crash. For all we know, the playable character (assuming there's just one) has some robotic limbs as well.

It seems that the player character may indeed have (at least) a robotic leg because every time he jumps we hear this weird metalic clank that makes him sound like some construction worker jumping around with pockets full of tools and nails and stuff like that, but this may (also) be a way in which the developer tries to convey the fact that he has a prosthetic limb or a metalic implant or something like that, that may connect to the motorcycle crash.

The fact that this clank is heard also in the scenes where Anita still has her original limbs coud be a hint that the player character is remembering those events, not actually living them, they are memories of the main character rather than actual facts of the timeline, and that's why they (may) prove to be inaccurate and confusing.

In my opinion the key to figuring out this little piece of work is to be found in the presentation that the author is providing for this episode - as he does for every episode in the Citizen Abel series - the short story that pops up in the main menu every time you start the game. It says there (among other stuff):

"It is no surprise that these select several supposedly In The Know haven't the foggiest ideea what happend that sullen afternoon. They believe they saw windows shatter; they believe they heard New Musical bullets sing through. The knowledgeable person needs a framework in time, and it is this they sadly lack."

And what Brendon Chung does is he misleads us by removing this "framework in time", he suspends it and leaves us wandering blindly for clues to restore it. Because we cannot make all the events that the game is presenting into a story without first restoring / creating a timeline for them. And Anita's robotic limbs have this as a primary narative function: helping us create a timeline for the events, helping us discerne between what happens in the present, when she's got those robotic limbs, and what happened in the past, when she did not have them yet. That motorcycle crash separates the past from the present - but also the actual facts from the recollections of the player - and helps us restore the "framework in time" that we need in order to sew the events together into a story. And that motorcycle crash doesn't even have to be real, an actual fact of the timeline, it could very well be just be a metaphor for a love that ended badly and left them both scarred and so full of resentment that it actually blew up in their faces durind the failed heist.

This is the first layer of interpretation: restoring the timeline, the cronology of the events and discerning the facts from the recollections, hallucinations, fantasies. First you have to determine WHEN the things happen.

And then you look for clues to understand WHAT happend. One of them betrayed the others (She has a gun in my face!), but who?
The clues are also misleading. The note next to the end sign reffers to the traitor as a "cilantro": "Then it is agreed my little cilantro friend. Surrender the others and you shall be spared." According to Urban Dictionary "cilantro" may reffer to a mexican, or "any Hispanic immigrant, particularly those of illegal origin". The first guess on that line goes towards Borges: he is - aside from the obvios name - the most spanish looking (he doesn't have the obvios oriental facial features that the other characters are displaying), he is a forger, so he has experience with illegal paperwork, he could be the perfect "cilantro". But Anita is also a hispanic name, so she could be too. On top of that, the woman with the red lock of hair is wearing during the wedding scene a "Che Guevara" revolutionary jacket, so she could also be the "cilantro". So this clue doesn't tell us much. It is carefully chosen - and the characters are intentionally designed accordingly - not to reveal anything.

Furthermore, the flashback during the shootout scene leads us to belive that maybe the reason for the betrayal is jelousy. Anita resented you not being faithful during the time you were together, and maybe she betrayed you and Borges acting on that. But jelousy is an impulsive motivation, while cuting a deal with the cops is a calculated decision, so the former could not be the cause for the latter. They both kinda contradict each other, so there must be more potential traitors in the game. Wich means that more than one thing was f*cked up in this "story of high-flying schemers and lovelorn criminals".

The game doesn't tell us specificaly what went wrong, but gives us all these reasons for things to go bad. So, it's not really about story telling , but more likely about story building , like a lego game for creating a story. It provides the tools to generate a story without properly telling one. This is what's great about Thirty Flights of Loving and the reason for it being a game afterall, rather than an interactive short story, and a game in a more traditional way then most of the videogames today.
Domarius 26 nov 2013 om 10:13vm 
Thanks @moreaboutcrows, that's as close to a satisfying answer as I'm going to get for this story. Even if at least it's clear that it's mixed up enough to keep you wondering. Although once I find that out, I lose interest, like I did with Dear Esther, knowing that there's no real answer - that is the answer. Mystery is solved - the author is just messing with you.

But I do agree with the story "building" idea. I like the idea of the girl in the shirt leaning against the pole at the wedding, then she's on the bed randomly in a flashback, instead of the other girl - the shirt girl is the same one from Gravity Bone, and that's really cool. All we know about her so far is she goes around ♥♥♥♥ing things up for people. Hahah.
1-7 van 7 reacties weergegeven
< >
Per pagina: 15 30 50