Keep in mind that they were led there by Craymen, so this is not necessarily indicative of natural or usual behavior.
Yeah Bluefoot, I can only agree with that actually, and it’s just there for whatever someone wants to make of it as I say. My own comment is motivated by it’s significance as… shall we say authorial intent applied to the macro-scale? In the overarching theme of humanity living in fear of ancient bio-terrors, I find significance in the idea that the most formative illustration of that terror as a chronic and catastrophic fact of life (in Saga at least) is done with mutated monsters.
In other words it’s less the attack itself that I infer significance from, it’s the defining milestone of dramatic evolution it shares time with in the narative. This was literally the first time within the games that the player is given hints the monsters are anything other than random living trash bequeathed by the Ancients dying wars.
Anyway I have some leg work to do for my full response…
Unless I’m actually misunderstanding your point, I do think I’ve addressed that point in what I was saying: the reason I argued all that might have been a bit unclear though, as I didn’t really link my point back to what you originally said. I honestly only didn’t quote the end of your paragraph because, well, I try not to over-quote, but I’ll specifically look at it now as it should help clarify what I mean:
What I meant is that this point - that the writers don’t literally tell us that mutants aren’t a part of the Ancients’ plans - has no real relevance to whether or not we’re meant to think that they are a part of the Ancients’ plans. We’d need a positive reason to believe that.
And as I’ve said, (sorry to labour the point,) I can’t think of any things that suggest that mutants are meant to be a part of the plan. The very fact that we’re not told that they are, when the writers do clearly show us that pure-types are, and when the writers have plenty of chances to literally say that they are, (and when so many of the descriptions of mutants seem to go on the understanding that they’re descended from mutated pure-types, that they’ve lost their original purposes and abilities, and that they’re merely wild beasts that are only subject to the laws of nature,) suggests to me that they aren’t.
But as I said, what really matters is why you’d argue that they are meant to be a part of whatever the Ancients intended; why you’d say we’re meant to believe that.
(EDIT: Hmm, I probably didn’t need to argue that whole point nearly as much as I have done, but I wanted to make it totally clear why I’m approaching storyline questions like this the way I am, and that seemed like a good starting point.)
So that’s what really matters eh? Actually I suppose it’s the only thing that ultimately matters to me as well, but here’s the thing…
I made this topic, and for a specific reason, and I made the reason specific. As a challenge to entrenched assumptions, and yes I care because those assumptions are inimical to my view. But since we’re at this point, look back over the topic thus far, it beautifully illustrates why it was necessary for me to present it in these terms first.
Despite the fact I made my argument and intentions for it specific, and despite the fact I have directly addressed most of the clear responses and even much of the left-field stuff, and despite the fact I have presented many very direct discrete challenges; the majority of response has not been in kind.
Instead the reaction has been largely an attempt to ‘correct’ my thinking with a deluge of rhetoric riding on the very same assumptions that I’ve specifically challenged in this thread. Many of the challenges still waiting completely unanswered. So I’m already running at a deficit in trying to honor every rebuttal.
If it’s like this already, just imagine the uphill battle I’d be in for if all those assumptions were completely unchallenged?
So, even though I’ve stated my (current) mandate for this topic was not to make the case for a state of affairs as such, you have chosen to repeatedly focus on that rather than deal with most of my direct questions. So be it, perhaps my mission is in part accomplished, by default at least.
But since I’ve referenced that quote anyway, guess I’ll play it out as well. Yes, the denial never said is itself a negative statement, but by converting a specific statement of denial (it could be termed a positive denial) into a generalised negative then referencing it to Elvis as an equatable example, your argumant was not merely silly, it was outright specious.
Elvis doesn’t exist in Panzer Dragoon, mutated monsters do, and I have already asserted the existence of implications for that positive you require, and you haven’t even attempted to directly discredit all the implications I’ve stated as it is, few though they are. And well, all these lovely semantics have greatly drained my focus and enthusiasm for continuing the real uphill battle for the moment so… to be continued…
Which of your direct questions do you feel I’m ignoring? If you’ll point them out to me I’ll try and answer them right away. But in all fairness, if you made this topic to question the accepted view that people have, you’ll need to give evidence to convince people that this accepted view is wrong. By far the best way to do that, of course, is to show us why you think the opposite is more likely to be right.
This really makes me think you’ve missed my point in that post. What I was suggesting is that the idea of mutated monsters being a part of the Ancients’ plan does not exist in Panzer Dragoon. That was the point I was attempting to make throughout that post; just like the silly-extreme example I gave of Edge being Elvis, I’m not aware of any evidence in the storyline that points towards this specific idea. But…
I know this is going to sound blunt, but I honestly don’t believe you have; that’s why I keep asking for this. You’ve made it quite clear that you believe what you believe, but not what specific things in the storyline - what specific quotes from the script, what specific events in the games - directly suggest this idea instead of the accepted idea, which you think people are mistaken about. If you really think I’m overlooking things you’ve already brought up, please, point them out to me and I’ll try and give clear answers to them.
shakes off beer fog
Another trap there Lance, though I’m not saying it’s intentional. However it leaves nothing to directly respond to in that paragraph since everything that follows is exactly that, things that suggest the mutated monsters aren’t part of the plan. So…
I don’t mind in the least, authorial intent is the shiznits as far as I’m concerned. And at this point I’ve just seen your last post but I’m just continuing from what I’ve already started which is more or less what you asked for so here’s the rest of that text as seen also in my topic post:
All of these adaptations that
the mutated types have acquired brings
up a perplexing question:
have the mutated types “un-evolved”?
It appears that they are forgetting
their initial purposes as weapons and
are slowly becoming more and more like
the natural organisms of the world,
in contrast with the pure types who do
not fear death and serve only to destroy.
Unfortunately, there is no way to know
the truth.
Perhaps this is how the world was
destined to be.
Only time shall tell, and even then,
the answer may not be known until
humans are long gone from this world.
As I stated at the outset, and to me it’s a perfect subject for authorial intent, the conspicuous depiction of the data as speculation is actually discouraging us from taking it as impirical. After that is the context I infer from the time frame of Orta, for me it’s actually directly in support of the idea that only now they are forgetting their purpose as weapons, since the idea that they would have been observed as “slowly” forgetting their role previous to the Great Fall doesn’t gel.
But this is a good place to clarify something you may not understand, while I recognise the greater implication of these annotational texts, even if we were to actually regard the literal speculation as impirical it still in no way precludes my view, because it doesn’t independently ratify your view.
Do you dispute the logic of that? If so please explain without more exposition and conjecture.
You responded after a fashion to the first part, and I showed that argument to be specious. The second part you did give an argument of convenience against, plausible conjecture, yet I felt lacking any continuity hooks from the storyline. Certainly neither example was in any way invalidated.
Well, I declined to counter your reply to that for reasons stated, but since you have now declined to honor said reasons I’ll quote you from just after the part I considered egregious paraphrasing as previously noted:
As you say we don’t know how the Towers truly operate, just the same way we don’t know how “pure”, evidently genderless bio-mechanical weapons would beget “decendants” or indeed how the process of “breeding” them could apply or what kind of “analysis” is entailed or why the towers seemingly manage to terrorise humans no end while paying hardly any attention to armies of mutated monsters which should by many assertions be threatening the ecosystem if they weren’t actually a part of it and yet you have unconsciously made many assumptions about it to conform to your preffered view and umm… speaking of ecosystems.
Glide Dragon
Glide Dragons are mass-
produced by the Towers
whenever the Towers’
artificial ecosystems
become imbalanced.
Once summoned, they will
attack anything until
they are destroyed.
You can make any arguments you want about fictional worlds, but ecosystem is a pretty specific term, and the ecosystem in this world is self-evident, it patently exists and conforms to expected criteria.
Still your use of the “we don’t know” argument is worth note…
I’ll add one new thing while on this subject, one of Craymen’s statements.
This world was constructed by the ancient ones as a delicate balance.
The Tower, the monsters, everything is interwoven...
Authorial intent for me right there, everything IS interwoven.
And finally:
[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]And Lance, just to try to change things up a little let me put it this way.
Where does your assumption of context ultimately come from? Can you say you would have ever arrived at that context only from what is revealed from naration or actual characters in the STORY?[/quote]
What I’m asking, to be as specific as I can, is:
If it wasn’t for the Encyclopedia, the defeated enemy classification, or anything else that’s annotational rather than narative, what is there in the storyline itself that could have ever caused us to make the assumption mutated monsters weren’t part of the system? That to me is the more important side of authorial intent, what was deemed important to the story?
Run for your life!
This isn’t the usual half-breed.
It’s a full-blooded one.
Just to highlight one section:
That actually isn’t true at all, Heretic. Allow me to provide you with a case study of my long experience as a fluffist in the Grim Darkness Of The Far Future that is Warhammer 40,000. The background information to the Dark Millenium is replete and veritably deluged in the ‘speculation’ that you cite - “it is thought that”; “scholars have postulated that”; “venerable Technomagi are currently testing the hypothesis that”; “common belief holds that”; “rumours suggest that” &c. &c. &c.
One reason these formulae are used is a desire to evoke a “mysterious” and “engrossing” aura - the actual situation that is described is quite cut and dried and straightforward, but in order to suggest that things are deeper than they actually are the text is embellished with all manner of these superfluous phrases. You’ll notice that in the quote you provided, despite the prevaricating “there is no way to know the truth”, no other alternative explanation is conjured for the origin of the mutants! This suggests that the mutants being unforseen degenerates is the desired explanation, and the “mystery” is, quite bluntly, bolted-on.
A further reason is simply commercial. Whilst brands such as Sonic and Mario can quite happily produce a prolificacy of titles because their core is ultimately quite a simple one (prevent Doctor Robotnik from transforming Mobius into a toxic wasteland / save the princess), those long-standing franchises who wish to develop a consistent and detailed background which retains a faithful sense of continuity are exactingly specific at their peril. If they do define things without any room for compromise, then very rapidly the designers paint themselves into a corner and exhaust all credible plot avenues. Adding a degree of ‘uncertainty’ gives the authors an opportunity to re-exploit a storyline from an alternative perspective should they so wish, or develop a new thread from an old one. This is a purely utilitarian device and has little bearing on the narrative within a game itself.
As such, just because “the truth” may be elusive, doesn’t mean that we are to ignore everything else.
That’s a pretty good way of putting it Robert, and I did try to address this kind of reasoning in one of my earlier posts too. If I can re-state my point, the story tells us these things, and the story doesn’t otherwise state (or illustrate) that these things are wrong. Fundamentally, it’s therefore quite safe to conclude that we’re meant to believe these things; otherwise, the writers wouldn’t have gone out of their way to tell us them in the first place. [Just to clarify, this is talking about the PDO encyclopaedia entries.]
As I said, almost everything we’re told about the PD world could be doubted in those terms because so much of it’s explained to us by characters or groups in that world who clearly don’t have a complete knowledge of what’s going on. And if a real scientist in the real world handed me a document that talked about perplexing questions and unknowable truths, then yes, I’d take what they were saying with a pinch of salt. What’s vitally important is that we recognise those bits of text from PDO are not real documents written by real scientists; they’re only another storytelling mechanism, written in a typically flavourful style.
The idea that the mutant races have lost their original purpose as weapons was also in the PD2 and PDS world descriptions, which I brought up earlier on. For example here:
The foundation of the Ancient Ages? civilization is the fusion of machines and living organisms, ?Living Weapons? …] Now, a part of the ?Living Weapons? have lost their original function, influenced by the wild …]
…and here:
Mutation kind
…] The many of them originally lose the portion of the combat efficiency which it had, power about of the pure blood which inhabits in the ruins does not have.
As the description in Orta is clearly just echoing these old descriptions, I really don’t think there’s reason to believe that it’s referring to a unique post-Saga, post-Great Fall phenomenon.
But if I can offer some reasoning for the word “slowly” turning up there, consider it like this. The “authorities” of the PD world have concluded that the pure-types were designed and created a thousand-odd years ago; that mutants are mutated descendants of pure types; and that mutants, while being significantly more like animals than the pure-types, still have offensive capabilities hanging over from their origins as weapons. They also seem to understand evolution in similar terms to us. Thus, judging by the starting point of the monsters’ “evolution” (1000-ish years ago) and the fact that mutants still have some living weapon properties hanging over (such as the advanced projectile attacks they often use), the statement that their progress has been “slow” appears to make sense. But as the statement about them losing their original traits seems to be a fundamental, old idea, my backing this up is probably a bit redundant.
[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]“The only way the monsters’ evolution can be considered to imply this is if one had a specific view of how Sestren operates that’s necessarily based on conjecture in the first place.”
Do you dispute the logic of that? If so please explain without more exposition and conjecture.[/quote]
As the topic’s on to page two now I needed to do some backtracking to be sure of what this was referring to, so please let me know if I’ve got your point wrong here. You’re pointing out (I think) that the things I was referring to didn’t literally state that the mutants’ existence is unintentional; they just didn’t literally deny that, and therefore aren’t much use as evidence. If that was your point, it’s well received.
However, if you’ll allow me to be so bold, what I’ve been trying to show is that this principle applies to the other side of the argument equally. To turn it around, the only way that the sources we were talking about could be considered to imply the alternative - that the Ancients did intend the mutants to exist - would also be that you start out with an assumption about how Sestren / the Towers operate. “Assumption” is probably too harsh a word though, which is why I was badgering you for things that you think do specifically suggest this one thing, not simply things that don’t rule it out - which is what I gather you were pulling me up on.
[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]“And even in all of the speculation there are no direct hints that the inhabitants of the game world think of the mutated monsters as any less representative of TWotA than the pure-types, but only as less certain death. The people fear and loathe ALL monsters, and if the pure-types were actually somehow opposed to the mutated monsters it would add a very odd question to the seekers’ motivations. Why would they be so focused on the Towers and other ancient ruins if to destroy them only meant the mutants were even less controlled?”
You responded after a fashion to the first part, and I showed that argument to be specious. The second part you did give an argument of convenience against, plausible conjecture, yet I felt lacking any continuity hooks from the storyline. Certainly neither example was in any way invalidated.[/quote]
I hate to turn another argument around, but to your point “there are no direct hints that the inhabitants of the game world think of the mutated monsters as any less representative of TWotA than the pure-types” - now be that as it may, I can’t think of any direct hints that suggest the people of the PD world do think that mutated monsters are a part of the Ancients’ various plans. (As well as pure-types, that is, which are clearly carrying out all sorts of ancient duties.) Again, this is another thing that - taken on its own merits - doesn’t contradict that argument, while at the same time it doesn’t specifically support it. (Not that I’m saying it does the counterargument a world of favours, it’s only another lack of solid confirmation either way.)
As to your second point in that paragraph: I don’t see any clear evidence that the Towers were controlling mutants on a constant basis. Not sure if that point was originally addressed to me, but this does tie in with something I’ll bring up in a second.
I’d be surprised if you didn’t know this, but an ecosystem can be anything from single-cell organisms to insects and upwards; an ecosystem, in all seriousness, can just be plants. (And for all its wastelands, the PD world does have some pretty massive forests). All we can safely conclude from things like this is that, as you say, the Towers don’t consider mutated monsters to be a threat to their ecosystems; but as it’s never specified just what those ecosystems are meant to be like, that doesn’t seem to support either argument.
Now it’s quite clear that the mutants aren’t dropping nukes or cutting down the rainforests or making holes in the ozone layer, and they’re certainly not causing the sort of ecological devastation that the ancient peoples allegedly inflicted on the world - the sort of devastation that, it’s implied, the Towers were created to repair and prevent happening again. On the contrary, they seem to ultimately settle into the “natural” roles of predators and prey; if you’ll consider a real-world parallel, they’re portrayed more or less like dinosaurs. Sure, they’d be pretty lethal to humankind, but they’re not doing anything in particular to harm the world they live in. And with the Towers’ “ecosystems” being as unspecified as they are, we’ve no evidence that they’d be threatening anything specific.
[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]I’ll add one new thing while on this subject, one of Craymen’s statements.
This world was constructed by the ancient ones as a delicate balance.
The Tower, the monsters, everything is interwoven…
Authorial intent for me right there, everything IS interwoven.[/quote]
Good call, I’d actually forgotten about that line; and when I read it just then it did strike me as somewhat suggestive. What I’m going to suggest, though, is that this is another statement that, while it could be meaning what you’re arguing it to mean, is still not specifically supporting that point. I’ll try and explain:
This world was constructed by the ancient ones as a delicate balance.
The Tower, the monsters, everything is interwoven…
Break the statement down into what, fundamentally, it has to mean. “Everything” is referring to everything that the Ancients created (and accounted for) when they set their plan in motion: the ruins, the Towers, the “monsters”, etc. (Remember, this is the first confirmation we had that there actually was a masterplan.) What this, like similar statements, doesn’t specify is whether or not the mutant monsters - as well as the original monsters - really were a part of that plan. Like the Empire’s excavation and massive use of Ancient technologies a thousand years on, like Azel’s decision to destroy the Tower of Uru, and like Abadd’s inability to revive his ancient masters, the mutants may simply be a consequence of the Ancients’ actions that the Ancients didn’t bank on; for all this statement literally tells us, they could be just another mishap that wasn’t part of the “interwoven” plan.
Ultimately, I’d say that this is only another and/or use of the word “monster” in PDS; what I’d be really interested to see is something that specifically says or shows that mutated monsters are a part of the Ancients’ various plans as well as pure-type monsters. A quote or event that this specific idea can be said to originate from, if you like, something that would give us reason to interpret all these other quotes as meaning what you’re suggesting they could mean, as opposed to the alternative.
Anyhow, rather than just arguing against the counterargument, I’ll try and find some other things that I think distinctly suggest mutants aren’t a part of the Ancients’ plans (as you’ve asked); but I might be a while getting that together. As I’m writing some of the longest posts I’ve written all year in this topic, I’ll leave it at that for now.
No hurry Lance, I still got gristle for the grinder as is. And don’t worry, I’m not done with you either. hehehe
Robert, I would have read your post with far less resistance if it hadn’t begun as… “That actually isn’t true at all, Heretic.”
Seeing as how my own statement was in regards to the subject taken at face value, and my interpretive qualification itself qualified as my own interpretation, what that ammounts to is saying "No, it CAN’T be read that way. No biggie I just had to get that out, I would have taken far less umbrage at something along the lines of “that’s not necessarily the case”.
From what you say it sounds like it’s conspicuously prevalent in that Dark Millenium. Whereas in Panzer Dragoon it’s conspicuously uncommon, again as such. Which you seem to have conspicuously missed.
Well, mysterious and engrossing aura kind of defines Panzer Dragoon to a tee, so I do not see the mystery itself as bolted on at all. Panzer Dragoon usually demonstates more finesse in fabricating that aura, so it’s the very “bluntness” of this particular example that’s conspicuous to me. Either way, the origin of the mutants is not described to any conclusive or comprehensive extent in the first place, even within the context of speculation.
I had the idea you yourself seized on implications for some alternative explanation to the most common assumptions in your theory though Robert, perhaps I need to read it again.
And I don’t have much to object to in the last paragraph, so I won’t quote it. It’s actually supportive of my agenda on the basis that, if you have applied that principle of motivation to the creators of Panzer Dragoon it effectively negates your assertion that the mystery was “bolted on” for flavor, but rather they deliberately set out to discourage player attachment to certain ideas.
Thank you, I greatly appreciate the support Robert. At least you seem to understand why I’m doing this? 
Oh boy, there’s no obvious place to begin so…
Lance, I have to say I’m getting somewhat tired of dealing with your use of wording things in absolutes.* “Break the statement down into what, fundamentally, it has to mean.”* No, that’s fundamentally not what it has to mean, that’s only what it means in the context of your existing assumptions. Yes you’ve presented the full reasoning for the assertion, but you’re effectiviely attempting to pre-qualify the assertion as inarguable.
This world was constructed by the ancient ones as a delicate balance.
The Tower, the monsters, everything is interwoven…
If this world was truly a balance, delicate no less, then in your version the mutated monsters would seemingly represent a tremendous imbalance of that design.
I’ll be dredging several posts back, I wont apologise since as I already said I’m running at a deficit with my points being leapfrogged in favor of piling more conjecture on the fire… This one is pertinent to a couple of points for me now, most simply is to reiterate that the writers had the very same chances to literally say the mutants are aberrations from the system, yet they never did. But relating to where I left off, Craymen certainly had his chance to tell us if the mutated monsters were screwing with the Ancients “delicate balance”, yet he didn’t either.
One part of the underlined section above tells me I evidently need to reinstate another principle that I had considered a given… “when the writers do clearly show us that pure-types are”:
The only argument on the table is whether mutated monsters are governed (to whatever degree) by Sestren/Towers, yes or no. The fact that pure-type monsters patently are is completely immaterial in that context. It also doesn’t change the fact that pure-types, as such, are never once specified as the agents of that plan in any generalised explanation of said plan. Which leads me to a second principle:
What I’m going to suggest, and at this point I can only guess it will sound surprising, is that that doesn’t matter Lance. You keep attempting to push the onus to me of proving a specific state when I never set out to and have made that clear repeatedly. Sorry to repeat myself but what else can I do;
In all the naratives that explain the Ancients plans and the Towers’ purpose to us in general terms, the only noun ever used is “monsters” and without prefix. The term monsters in this context is implicitly inclusive, so for you to extrapolate an exclusive meaning from it the burden of proof is all on you.
Now, much as I would love to actually discuss the merits of differing interpretations with you, I really have no option to in this climate where I may expect a certain perpetuated reinterpretation of the literal material to be introduced as fact at every turn. Subtle though the distinction of inserting the prefix “pure-type” in every passage relating to the Towers may be, that preclusive mentality can add up to a great many interesting alternatives being thoughtlessly dismissed.
Which unfortunately brings me back to…
[quote=“Lance Way”]
This really makes me think you’ve missed my point in that post. What I was suggesting is that the idea of mutated monsters being a part of the Ancients’ plan does not exist in Panzer Dragoon. That was the point I was attempting to make throughout that post; just like the silly-extreme example I gave of Edge being Elvis, I’m not aware of any evidence in the storyline that points towards this specific idea. But…
I know this is going to sound blunt, but I honestly don’t believe you have; that’s why I keep asking for this. You’ve made it quite clear that you believe what you believe, but not what specific things in the storyline - what specific quotes from the script, what specific events in the games - directly suggest this idea instead of the accepted idea, which you think people are mistaken about. If you really think I’m overlooking things you’ve already brought up, please, point them out to me and I’ll try and give clear answers to them.[/quote]
I still don’t believe I’ve missed the point at all, as it gets clearer it starts to get less agreeable actually. As a refresher:
Now, let’s establish that you are presumably presenting an argument to convince me here, and it has been established that you know I believe that it is indeed suggested by the script that mutated monsters are part of the plan; therefore in tying that to the assertion that a lack of “denial” is irrelevant on the basis it was never implied in the first place, then the evidence in your argument for me being wrong becomes the presumption that I am already wrong. Since you know I believe otherwise.
In essence you have argued that I can’t be right, simply because you believe I’m wrong.
More absolute terms, more presumption of correctness. The following is I believe the very first instance you have accorded me benefit of the doubt on anything Lance:
And it was a lot of work just to get that, then you had to spoil the moment by attempting to sweep it’s significance under the rug:
While I will of course allow it, I must say your boldness is rather acute (if you think you’re turning something around) given that, in this entire topic I have never been the one arguing in absolutes. And the further we take this the more purely opportunistic some of your arguments start to look…
[quote=“Lance Way”]I’d be surprised if you didn’t know this, but an ecosystem can be anything from single-cell organisms to insects and upwards; an ecosystem, in all seriousness, can just be plants. (And for all its wastelands, the PD world does have some pretty massive forests). All we can safely conclude from things like this is that, as you say, the Towers don’t consider mutated monsters to be a threat to their ecosystems; but as it’s never specified just what those ecosystems are meant to be like, that doesn’t seem to support either argument.
Now it’s quite clear that the mutants aren’t dropping nukes or cutting down the rainforests or making holes in the ozone layer, and they’re certainly not causing the sort of ecological devastation that the ancient peoples allegedly inflicted on the world - the sort of devastation that, it’s implied, the Towers were created to repair and prevent happening again. On the contrary, they seem to ultimately settle into the “natural” roles of predators and prey; if you’ll consider a real-world parallel, they’re portrayed more or less like dinosaurs. Sure, they’d be pretty lethal to humankind, but they’re not doing anything in particular to harm the world they live in. And with the Towers’ “ecosystems” being as unspecified as they are, we’ve no evidence that they’d be threatening anything specific.[/quote]
Please man, I expressly acknowledged room for interpretation in my arguments about the ecosystem, and I find it almost abusive that you then need to basically reiterate the obvious in such an inflated manner. The implication itself can be expressed very simply:
**IF the mutated monsters are part of the ecosystem;
AND the Towers control the ecosystem;
THEN Sestren controls the mutated monsters.
**
For now I’ll leave further interpretation of the individual implications alone, they are, AS ALWAYS, subject to debate. But in this context it is a very poor application of semantics to quibble over what the ecosystem could be. It’s like arguing over the technical definition of “organic”, since it is quite evident the descriptive use it’s put to in Panzer Dragoon is not to be considered technical. The “ecosystem” in this world is manifest, and you effectively just depicted the mutated monsters as being a manifest ingredient of it with the above Lance.
On something of an aside, it’s honestly a little mystifying to me that you’re so… recalcitrant on this idea Lance. It doesn’t negatively impact very many existing details anyway, and I will assert that it tends to innately resolve many other theories, or at least greatly streamline the conjecture needed to fill in gaps.
Another thing is, from what I’ve witnessed the most accepted terminology for the Heresy Program making it’s way to Lagi is as a “download” or similar. And since most people, I believe yourself included, seem to think of the Heresy Program as literally a facet/twin/clone/subprogram/what-have-you of Sestren, then you have already, by default, made peace with the idea that Sestren has some way to directly influence mutated monsters… ?
OK, losing focus again…
I appologise for such massive quoting, and I regret the need to be so “blunt” myself but you’re truly leaving me little option. The character of much of your response comes across as an argument that you cannot be wrong, and that I cannot be right. Once again I’m arguing for the benefit of the doubt first and foremost. I’ve been given at least a couple of indications that there are others who see things similar to myself, yet there’s virtually no hint whatsoever to be found anywhere else in this forum.
To me that’s indicative of the excluding power these various technicalities of the perpetuated reinterpretation have. When attempts to link to the literal material can be overriden so easily by the status quo.
Ehh, now that I’ve got most of that out of the way, and if I may request Lance that you be so kind as to refrain from flavoring your posts with quite so many subtle presumptions of correctness; I may start to present the actual alternative case with some continuity.
After what’s been presented already perhaps the best way to start this is to tell it as the experience I had of playing the games. Describe why I personally never arrived at the idea mutated monsters aren’t part of Sestren’s operation.
The first two games are essentially irrelevant outside of the fact we fight a lot of monsters in them and duel other dragons. The details have little weight until after playing Saga and we gain enough context to understand them. For myself going into Saga the only ‘knowledge’ I had was that the “bio-weapons” were the legacy of an ancient civilisation and that various contemporary human factions were making various uses of assorted assets of that same legacy. Plus there’s dragons, which are clearly very special though unclear why.
The intro to Saga is of course thrilling as it gives us our first personalised view of the undertaking of appropriating those assets, and of course it spells out the reality of some of those “assets” being more dangerous than others, though that should already be apparent. So we get another setup for warring human factions, and the mysterious dragon appears in another special circumstance. All well and good, time to kill lots of monsters then find out we’ve got no friends left at all so we might as well kill more stuff.
Then after saving someone from a really-big-scary he actually gives us a few hints about this world in terms only guessed at before! So… this Empire has no historical continuity to the ancient civilisation? This isn’t a continuation of the ancient wars but brand new conflicts, no one even ultimately knows how the technology works? Our own dragon may be ‘special’ even among the special, and dragons are little more than myth to ALL humanity? And this bio-weapon problem isn’t just about dark dragons and big roaming military automatons but also packs of dangerous monsters who never seem to go away? Interesting…
Taken as a whole, the events framing the desert section of Saga left me with all those impressions fairly well established. Between Cainus and the caravan, the connection it “may have been” Stryders that attacked Gash’s seeker village, An’jou’s hunters and their endless losing struggle against the monsters, the hope of a place without any monsters at all; hell until this part of Saga it still wasn’t clear that every monster we’re fighting is part of the Ancients legacy, but after this it was clear enough to me the never ending flood of ‘wild’ monsters was the daily threat wearing down the souls of man.
‘About the Monsters’
{Skiad Ops Gash}
They’re all
that’s left of the Ancient Age.
They were scattered
throughout the world.
They may regroup in the forest,
near the ruins.
{Edge}
Why are they attacking humans?
{Skiad Ops Gash}
Perhaps they were ancient weapons,
or maybe our wars
angered them.
Basically, at this stage we’re given the view of a ‘world’ that’s forever against humanity, not merely individual deadly traps and trash scattered around but a seeming malevolence to existence that cannot be escaped. Surely the average villager knows better than to mess with ancient ruins unless they’re looking for a fight, but they can’t escape persecution even when minding their own business, because of the angry ‘wild things’ which, even flaunting the ‘natural’ laws of self preservation, evidently want to kill humans at any cost.
At least that’s the image that manifested for myself, so with these notions in place Craymen’s revelation held no confusion for me whatsoever:
…That is the purpose of these ruins,or what we call the Tower.
It creates a habitable environment for an already dead planet...
To this day, we're protected by the power of the Ancient Age.
I'm sure you've grown to loathe the monsters.
They have a purpose. Essentially, they act as the
caretakers of the ecosystem.
Their actions, all, are to protect mankind from extinction.
This world was constructed by the ancient ones as a delicate balance.
The Tower, the monsters, everything is interwoven...
Even to this day humanity was being “protected” by the power of the Ancient Age, the monsters actions, ALL, a mark of that protection. Reading it at face value the first time there was nothing even remotely ambiguous about the statement. And inspecting it more closely now, for myself there is no satisfactory way to resolve how the conspicuous balance in evidence between humanity and the mutated monsters is not exactly what Craymen is referring to. No matter how hard they try, humanity can’t defeat them, yet we also still survive.
It would seem neither side can be exterminated despite a state of mutual and absolute aggression and vindictiveness.
If the mutated monsters were literally running wild, then I find no conspicuous evidence of any other monsters actions that could mark Ancient protection to this day. The Ancients appear to have left humanity to fend for itself in that case. However, for argument’s sake let’s play with the idea that pure-types are actually employed against the mutated monsters at times, sent in to thin the herd and restore the balance perhaps? But of course, if that (largely groundless) scenario were the case it would establish that the mutated monsters were indeed under control.
The most important thing for myself was simply that I was told “monsters” (inclusive) keep humanity away from the top of the food chain according to The Ancients’ plans, I was shown the mutated monsters to be the ‘occupying force’ exerting daily influence on people’s lives, and that there was never one single thing to be found thereafter in any of the games that contradicted these correlations.
Quite a few small references only solidified things for me:
Soldier Guide:
The uncivilized people of the
frontier cannot harm our forces.
The real threat is the enemy that
wields the power of the ancient
ones, the monsters. They are
extremely dangerous. An ordinary
man is but food to them.
Monsters are unintelligent. The
Academy is very close to
understanding their instincts. Our
weapons, formations, and tactics
are based upon this research. Use
them wisely, and the Empire will
triumph.
Dragon Report:
The most notable report about the
dragon is that there was a rider
on its back. Besides a few lesser
monsters, such as Coolias,
no creatures exhibit fond
behavior towards humans.
Protodrone:
Protodrones are the
prototypes of a second
model of Drone.
Fortunately, the ancient
wars ended before more
of these models were
created.
I can easily infer from that mutated monsters to be the primary threat for the Empire even still…
I guess most monsters truly are out to get people, but why not ALL of 'em anyway? Almost seems like there could be a plan behind it…
Wait, does this mean pure-types aren’t being manufactured anymore, or at least not all of them can be replenished? hmm…
Leader’s Note:
Thanks to that huge wind net,
there’s no way a monster could get
in here. This job is probably
going to be easier than I first
thought.
Monsters like, I dunno those nasty Baldor, Pattergo, Urchins? So they really are that big a concern then…
{Azel}
Does this surprise you?
Your dragon is no different
than the monsters you’re fighting.
They were both created by humans,
and exist only to fulfill
the duties assigned to them.
For whatever it’s worth she said that while we were in the middle of fighting mutated monsters, that had mutated since they were born there actually…
{Gash}
He claims the Tower will
restore this world.
If the Tower ran our lives,
there would be no war.
But we’re not really living.
Just being kept alive.
But…
Edge, do you remember the village
we visited, shortly after we met?
Yeah?
We, the seekers are…
the survivors of the villages
attacked by those monsters.
Justice may not be with us.
But no matter what they call it,
humans struggle to survive.
And we’re no exception.
Are we then being kept alive, to this very day? And Gash, are you essentially saying the Seekers recruit mostly people who’ve been through a particularly thorough ‘protection’ just like Cainus? Makes sense enough to me…
Neo-Stryder:
These predators of the
waterways are a hybrid
cross between Stryders
and Lazara. Their DNA
was fused by one of the
weapons from the
Ancient Age. Their
behavior patterns are
similar to Stryders.
Fused BY one of the weapons of the ancient age? Makes me wonder what, or maybe who’s purpose that would serve…
Ye Olde Diary:
This world has been molded into
its current shape by the powers
of a series of ruins we call
Towers. The Towers control the
environment, breed monsters,
and control human populations.
Even in the Ancient Age, there
were people against the presence
of the Towers. The Towers’
creators feared these rebels would
rise to destroy the Towers, so
they created monsters to guard
their creations. And the dragons.
I still just don’t get that “breeding” thing, pure-types were all presumably ‘designed’ by Ancient scientists but hey it’s just a word. There’s another reference to “creating” the guards though…
Bible 1:
Water, plants, and beasts
disappeared, the ruins closed
their doors, only the monsters
remained to feed. And thus,
the Gods have left the humans.
We were a part of the Gods’ glory,
but now there is only chaos.
Now of course this isn’t anything to be taken literally, but still it’s pretty interesting they’re basically saying ‘This world is nothing but monsters!’ Almost as though “monsters” have become the entirety of the ecosystem…
Memory Report:
It is a device that will create a
field that can control monsters’
actions. It was built, perhaps, to
guard the information recorded
there. But the power source is
very small, so it is probably
severely limited.
Wait, what’s the need for something that controls the monsters actions if pure-types are innately servants of something in the first place? Seems like a big security flaw to me, so much for perfection…
Our friend Glide Dragon once more:
Glide Dragons are mass-
produced by the Towers
whenever the Towers’
artificial ecosystems
become imbalanced.
Once summoned, they will
attack anything until
they are destroyed.
I’m only quoting that again to segway into the subject of frivolous contradictions that can of course be found all over the place.
Orta Encyclopedia, Pure Types:
It is believed that they were created as
autonomous sentries of sorts, whose
sole purpose was to defend the ancient
ruins, before they became ruins.
Strictly speaking an innacuracy there I suppose, but kinda funny how it’s an example of the “it is believed” flavoring Robert defined. As is this next one…
Dragon Report:
According to the ancient records,
the dragon and the final weapon,
the ‘Tower’, are linked somehow.
Our researchers are split between
the theories that the dragon is
the Guardian of the Tower or that
it is the destroyer of the Tower.
Another statement clear in it’s misconception, it seems almost consistent in Panzer Dragoon to apply that brand of ‘mystification’ to things that aren’t actually so “cut and dry” doesn’t it?
But believe it or not none of that matters greatly to me, I presented all that not to declare any of it as conclusive, since unlike some I know very well any individual detail or word is far from, but to make the point there’s at least as many such details to support my view as to support the opposing. And nearly everything has room for interpretation in the first place.
Perfect example here, the translation from Kimimi that Lance quoted a couple times, unedited for the first time this topic!
? The foundation of the Ancient Ages? civilization is the fusion of machines and living organisms, ?Living Weapons6? that call out to people to the origins of the gene reconstructed unmanned weapons. Now, a part of the ?Living Weapons? have lost their original function, influenced by the wild, also those exist which have evolved in another direction.
The other machines variety is created from the same technology, used for the outside of the space ships engine7 and the troops use living organism armour plating for their outward appearance.
Is it just me, or could that be suggesting not all mutated monsters are even mutating in the same way or for the same reasons? Interesting, if still ultimately academic, as we have quite simply never been told any reason for the mutated monsters existence in the first place. Well except that they’re “monsters” of course, and we have been told that Sestren uses monsters to control humanity, so that could be one reason right?
That’s all I’m concerned with, it works just fine and not a damn thing in the games has ever caused me to question it, it’s that solid. Conversely if I even try to believe the alternative the believability of the game world itself becomes significantly impacted. Holes appear all over the place demanding to be patched by details and events we’ve never seen.
The creators told me these things, they make perfect sense to me, and they are never contradicted by the storyline or anything else I’m aware of.
OK, that’s the end of my own foundation rhetoric and possibly the last I’ll ever even say on the matter here, because of that there’s one other thing I want to state. The only reason reading back through this whole forum became a conscious idea for me at some point was that, after reading the theory and mystery articles and picking up on the “status quo” view I genuinely wanted to find out what I’d missed to be so off in my own view.
After failing to find any references to outright contradict my belief, or even very much I wasn’t already conscious of, the next logical step was a direct trial by fire. As far as I can tell my belief has hardly been singed, yet there’s nothing of a victory in that. Given that the only four people even interested enough to chime in directly have all been essentially against my view it’s clear enough this is something the board didn’t want to hear and this boat should never have been rocked.
Sincere regrets over any resentment I may have fostered, I will say I’m not actually so serious as it may seem about the details, again I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I don’t have all the answers, but it’s almost physiologically impossible for me to concede an argument when I know I haven’t lost… that’s all. shrug
Peace- 
Well Heretic, I can add more of my own thoughts to this topic if you promise to go easy on me. 
Although I doubt the mutants were a part of the ancients’ plan, it’s impossible to say for certain since only a trickle of real information has been made available to us. Still, can you really argue with Kimmi’s translated scripts? Established lore? We can pratically state as a fact that the mutants were once ancient guardians that mutated into feral beasts over time. Is that debatable?
It seems to me that humans just became a part of their food-chain.
Mutated mosters are hardly something you can easily control, so it would strike me as odd to see the Ancients creating them on purpose. The fact that drones weren’t meant to reproduce also suggests that the Ancients wanted to keep their creations under strict control. Since the mutants can’t be controlled, they would become an unknown factor in the ecological balance the Ancients wanted to create. Why would they want that to happen?
Exactly!
Where have you been D-Unit? Looking forward to the Xbox 360? Hopefully we’ll see more games with wild sc-fi settings on Microsoft’s latest Xbox.
I still visit the forum regularly, though I admit it has been a while since I posted something here I’ll answer that XBox360 question in Gehn’s thread.
I guess I just can’t be easy going in this topic anymore, so there’s nothing constructive left for me to add.
D-Unit, you’re right in that I wouldn’t easily be able to control any mutated monsters, I never got the idea it would be beyond The Ancients but that’s apparently just me. All that matters now is that I can’t control this topic, and I have no need to any longer. I’ve said everything that really matters, and my sensibilities of narative importance are evidently as alien to most here as the mutated monsters are to Sestren’s plan. The Will of the Ancients has spoken.
My point was that the very nature of mutated monsters makes them difficult, if not impossible, to control. Unlike with the creation of the truetype bio-engineered monsters, you have no control over the end result of a mutation. For example, however unlikely, mutations could cause them to become more powerfull than the original creatures. Lagi originated from a mutated coolia, and we all know how successful Sestren was at stopping it.
None of the Panzer Dragoon games gave us the absolute truth about the Ancients. That’s the reason topics like this exist, it’s all up to the player’s own interpretation. We only gave you our opinion…
Opinions are good, and I’m not upset over yours or anyone else’s, I’m just done arguing about them. Your point there seems to brook no argument anyway, it is clearly ‘truth’ for you. But any reasoning I would present for why it does not ring true for myself may already be found echoed in this topic, for anyone open enough to the argument in the first place.
One can only have material dismissed, ignored or summarily overridden so many times before it’s clear one’s message and meaning is falling on deaf ears. The response has been uniformly against, generally vehement, and largely reactionary. My idea was not entertained, and the fight no longer entertains me.
But I’m not trying to end discussion, I’ve just defaulted on it personally.
Just thought I should say sorry, Heretic, that I didn’t get back to you on any of your last replies to my posts, and also sorry if I’ve annoyed you in any way in this topic, as you honestly sound quite unhappy. If it’s seemed at any point that I’ve been dismissing your argument totally out of hand, that really hasn’t been my intention. In truth, if I thought your argument was fundamentally wrong, I wouldn’t have spent so much time talking to you about it. I was genuinely interested in getting to the heart of why you’re convinced of what you’re convinced, because as you can see, it’s not the impression most gamers have come away from PD with. But when I’m trying to persuade someone of the validity of something - even if I’m only arguing why I think one thing is more likely than another thing - I invariably argue hard, so again, sorry if I’ve argued too hard here. Anyhow, as you’ve probably noticed I haven’t been posting on the forums at all recently, and I still don’t have enough time to give anything like a full reply to your posts, so I’ll leave off doing so until I do. I’m not quite sure when that will be though.
Please believe me Lance, no apology is necessary. I came prepared for a fight and I may even say that, in many respects I was dead-on as far as my expectation for the response I might get. It’s nothing to do with the level of resistance per se, it’s that the overall nature of it has been quite uncompromising.
And regardless of any exasperation I’ve communicated you may be certain my thoroughness of response is a mark of respect, I’m well practiced in more expedient tactics for making my point when I’ve no concern for offending someone.