Sign in to follow this  
Scaler193

The orange princess. IS A SWAP!!! *Massive Spoilers*

Recommended Posts

Ok after many results of looking at information about this orange princess I have noticed something. During her time being held hostage *or for whatever reasons* when you see her crying her hair is currently purple. Not green. Hmmmmm hair dye? Mabey and another thing is that her face is peachy insted of white. I wonder why? Mabey she just wasnt all dressed up. Or mabey the king had a decoy all this time *All kings have a jester why cant he have a clown?* Another thing to note is how fast he gets out of that scene right before you kiss the orange princess. You also can not follow him. Strange huh? So mabey while your getting amazed by incredibly amazing dancing skills the king is doing one of his favorite past times. Hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I talked to Tom Fulp about this. The fourth princess is Tricky, and there was no swapping involved.

BAM! There it is...

I question the hair though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I talked to Tom Fulp about this. The fourth princess is Tricky, and there was no swapping involved.

This commits the intentional fallacy. All products of human creation, including games, are open to interpretation. All an author can tell us is what the intended meaning was, but we must remember that intended meaning is not always identical with received meaning, and in fact there is often a significant discrepancy between the two. The truth of any artistic artifact is that there are multiple interpretations, multiple meanings, and the interpreter's own disposition will determine which of these several equally valid meanings he or she will accept. So, far from being the final word on anything, an author's (or co-author's) interpretation of his or her own work should be understood for what it is: one interpretation among many, and a conversation starter rather than a conversation killer. Fun with hermeneutics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This commits the intentional fallacy. All products of human creation, including games, are open to interpretation. All an author can tell us is what the intended meaning was, but we must remember that intended meaning is not always identical with received meaning, and in fact there is often a significant discrepancy between the two. The truth of any artistic artifact is that there are multiple interpretations, multiple meanings, and the interpreter's own disposition will determine which of these several equally valid meanings he or she will accept. So, far from being the final word on anything, an author's (or co-author's) interpretation of his or her own work should be understood for what it is: one interpretation among many, and a conversation starter rather than a conversation killer. Fun with hermeneutics!

I'd have to respectfully disagree. As someone who draws petty webcomics, I like it when my readers come up with theories, but I don't like it when they try to change the story on me. In a way, it kinda makes it look like the readers think they can do a better job at writing than the actual author. Of course, this only applies when the author doesn't want the story interpreted differently, which very often isn't the case.

Of course, you have a point. Tom Fulp also told me the game was open to interpretations (technically, he answered 'it could go either way' for a bunch of my questions, but that's pretty much the same thing), but most of us aren't looking for interpretations more than we're looking to discover the secrets of the actual story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This commits the intentional fallacy. All products of human creation, including games, are open to interpretation. All an author can tell us is what the intended meaning was, but we must remember that intended meaning is not always identical with received meaning, and in fact there is often a significant discrepancy between the two. The truth of any artistic artifact is that there are multiple interpretations, multiple meanings, and the interpreter's own disposition will determine which of these several equally valid meanings he or she will accept. So, far from being the final word on anything, an author's (or co-author's) interpretation of his or her own work should be understood for what it is: one interpretation among many, and a conversation starter rather than a conversation killer. Fun with hermeneutics!

I'd have to respectfully disagree. As someone who draws petty webcomics, I like it when my readers come up with theories, but I don't like it when they try to change the story on me. In a way, it kinda makes it look like the readers think they can do a better job at writing than the actual author. Of course, this only applies when the author doesn't want the story interpreted differently, which very often isn't the case.

Of course, you have a point. Tom Fulp also told me the game was open to interpretations (technically, he answered 'it could go either way' for a bunch of my questions, but that's pretty much the same thing), but most of us aren't looking for interpretations more than we're looking to discover the secrets of the actual story.

Yes, some consumers of art find genetic or author-centered interpretations to be more convincing than formalist or affective interpretations, and while I have no quarrel with them, I also have no quarrel with other interpretive dispositions. I try to apply a healthy dose of relativism to my own considerations of such matters, meaning that everyone's interpretation is correct, but only from their own point of view. This means that someone whose evaluative criteria for an interpretation are compatible with the assumptions that attend a bias towards genetic criticism will find the author's intent to be quite useful. But it is also true that once an artist publishes his or her work, it in some sense becomes the intellectual property of the consumer, though not in any legal sense; what I mean is that the consumer asserts his or her right to contribute to the act of interpretation, without which the work ceases to have any meaning whatsoever (an unread text is meaningless, and it is only in the act of engagement with that text that the text has a meaning). And the consequence of this joint ownership between author and consumer is that the dichotomy between "looking for interpretations" and "looking to discover the secrets of the actual story" is revealed as a false dichotomy. All meanings, including the author's, are interpretations. There are many "actual stories," and the author's version of the artwork's meaning is only one of these. Take Milton's poem Paradise Lost, for example. Milton wrote it thinking that he was going to "justify the ways of God to man," but anyone who reads that poem immediately realizes that Milton's God is an overbearing tyrant, and the poem ends up justifying the ways of Satan. Milton's intent is a minor afterthought, because the poem simply doesn't do what he wanted it to do, or what he thought it did. The poet William Blake was the first to announce that Milton "was a true poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it," and no one has been able to convincingly refute that in the 200 years since it was written. The history of art is teeming with similar examples, in which artworks take on new life with each new interpretation, many of which directly contradict the author's announced intent. We're not always fully aware of what we're doing when we make art, and sometimes we find that we've done something far different from what we thought we were doing. That's not a comforting thought for those of us that are actively creating artworks, but not all truths are comforting.

I will say that if an interpretation can't be supported with examples from the artwork, I'm unlikely to find it convincing. So, for example, if someone said that CC was about the history of basket weaving or the collapse of the Soviet Union, I'd be resistant to those interpretations. But the original poster points to some compelling pieces of textual evidence to lend legitimacy to his reading.

So yeah, in the end our viewpoints might be incommensurable, but look at how much fun it is to debate this! Not as much fun as actually crashing castles, of course, but fun in its own way. Best of luck on the comics, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This commits the intentional fallacy. All products of human creation, including games, are open to interpretation. All an author can tell us is what the intended meaning was, but we must remember that intended meaning is not always identical with received meaning, and in fact there is often a significant discrepancy between the two. The truth of any artistic artifact is that there are multiple interpretations, multiple meanings, and the interpreter's own disposition will determine which of these several equally valid meanings he or she will accept. So, far from being the final word on anything, an author's (or co-author's) interpretation of his or her own work should be understood for what it is: one interpretation among many, and a conversation starter rather than a conversation killer. Fun with hermeneutics!

I'd have to respectfully disagree. As someone who draws petty webcomics, I like it when my readers come up with theories, but I don't like it when they try to change the story on me. In a way, it kinda makes it look like the readers think they can do a better job at writing than the actual author. Of course, this only applies when the author doesn't want the story interpreted differently, which very often isn't the case.

Of course, you have a point. Tom Fulp also told me the game was open to interpretations (technically, he answered 'it could go either way' for a bunch of my questions, but that's pretty much the same thing), but most of us aren't looking for interpretations more than we're looking to discover the secrets of the actual story.

Yes, some consumers of art find genetic or author-centered interpretations to be more convincing than formalist or affective interpretations, and while I have no quarrel with them, I also have no quarrel with other interpretive dispositions. I try to apply a healthy dose of relativism to my own considerations of such matters, meaning that everyone's interpretation is correct, but only from their own point of view. This means that someone whose evaluative criteria for an interpretation are compatible with the assumptions that attend a bias towards genetic criticism will find the author's intent to be quite useful. But it is also true that once an artist publishes his or her work, it in some sense becomes the intellectual property of the consumer, though not in any legal sense; what I mean is that the consumer asserts his or her right to contribute to the act of interpretation, without which the work ceases to have any meaning whatsoever (an unread text is meaningless, and it is only in the act of engagement with that text that the text has a meaning). And the consequence of this joint ownership between author and consumer is that the dichotomy between "looking for interpretations" and "looking to discover the secrets of the actual story" is revealed as a false dichotomy. All meanings, including the author's, are interpretations. There are many "actual stories," and the author's version of the artwork's meaning is only one of these. Take Milton's poem Paradise Lost, for example. Milton wrote it thinking that he was going to "justify the ways of God to man," but anyone who reads that poem immediately realizes that Milton's God is an overbearing tyrant, and the poem ends up justifying the ways of Satan. Milton's intent is a minor afterthought, because the poem simply doesn't do what he wanted it to do, or what he thought it did. The poet William Blake was the first to announce that Milton "was a true poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it," and no one has been able to convincingly refute that in the 200 years since it was written. The history of art is teeming with similar examples, in which artworks take on new life with each new interpretation, many of which directly contradict the author's announced intent. We're not always fully aware of what we're doing when we make art, and sometimes we find that we've done something far different from what we thought we were doing. That's not a comforting thought for those of us that are actively creating artworks, but not all truths are comforting.

I will say that if an interpretation can't be supported with examples from the artwork, I'm unlikely to find it convincing. So, for example, if someone said that CC was about the history of basket weaving or the collapse of the Soviet Union, I'd be resistant to those interpretations. But the original poster points to some compelling pieces of textual evidence to lend legitimacy to his reading.

So yeah, in the end our viewpoints might be incommensurable, but look at how much fun it is to debate this! Not as much fun as actually crashing castles, of course, but fun in its own way. Best of luck on the comics, by the way.

I must agree, but then disagree. I'm Gilgamesh101, remember me? Well, I mean I added you, or whatever. But you remember me, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree, but then disagree. I'm Gilgamesh101, remember me? Well, I mean I added you, or whatever. But you remember me, right?

What's up Gil?! Of course I remember you. Our Insane Mode runs were legendary. Well, legendary in my own mind anyway. I still can't get past insane Full Moon.

I'm glad that you both agree and disagree. That's the hallmark of a strong thinker. So what do you think? Are the secrets of Castle Crashers to be found in our own minds, or in Tom Fulp's? Or should we dispense with the snobspeak and shut up and play?

Here's the secret that I want to know: where is all the missing weaponry? And why does that 2x4 thing keep vanishing from my frog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree, but then disagree. I'm Gilgamesh101, remember me? Well, I mean I added you, or whatever. But you remember me, right?

What's up Gil?! Of course I remember you. Our Insane Mode runs were legendary. Well, legendary in my own mind anyway. I still can't get past insane Full Moon.

I'm glad that you both agree and disagree. That's the hallmark of a strong thinker. So what do you think? Are the secrets of Castle Crashers to be found in our own minds, or in Tom Fulp's? Or should we dispense with the snobspeak and shut up and play?

Here's the secret that I want to know: where is all the missing weaponry? And why does that 2x4 thing keep vanishing from my frog?

Legendary indeed.

It's a glitch, I think that Kelly said that, along with why the treasure music never plays. I think a weapon disappearing is just a glitch, not some horrible invention from TB itself. Also, I do agree that people can listen to Tom Fulp, but I think everyone has a part of their mind where they want to have a crazy guess. Then there is the logic part of your brain, which makes you just wanna state the truth, instead of some crazy thing. But, if you very imaginative, you are completely able to express your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree, but then disagree. I'm Gilgamesh101, remember me? Well, I mean I added you, or whatever. But you remember me, right?

What's up Gil?! Of course I remember you. Our Insane Mode runs were legendary. Well, legendary in my own mind anyway. I still can't get past insane Full Moon.

I'm glad that you both agree and disagree. That's the hallmark of a strong thinker. So what do you think? Are the secrets of Castle Crashers to be found in our own minds, or in Tom Fulp's? Or should we dispense with the snobspeak and shut up and play?

Here's the secret that I want to know: where is all the missing weaponry? And why does that 2x4 thing keep vanishing from my frog?

Legendary indeed.

It's a glitch, I think that Kelly said that, along with why the treasure music never plays. I think a weapon disappearing is just a glitch, not some horrible invention from TB itself. Also, I do agree that people can listen to Tom Fulp, but I think everyone has a part of their mind where they want to have a crazy guess. Then there is the logic part of your brain, which makes you just wanna state the truth, instead of some crazy thing. But, if you very imaginative, you are completely able to express your opinion.

Yeah, I wasn't seriously suggesting that the disappearing weapon is a secret that we can interpret. Just being ironic is all; that's almost certainly a glitch. But I was being serious about the 4th princess question. The original poster's idea of some kind of swap just seems really fun to me. Others have posted in the past about seeing paintings of the 4th princess dead with a sword in her back in the painter's room, and the people who have posted that the original 4th princess was killed and replaced with Tricky have a solid argument that can be supported with suggestive moments from the game itself, regardless of what the creators have said. Not that it really matters; the game's fun either way, and all of this theorizing is just overthinking things and reading too much into it. But it's tough to ignore how good the game is at understanding genre conventions, anticipating the player's expectations, and then subverting those expectations. It's got a mischievous, postmodern sensibility to it that makes me think it's smarter than it lets on. I mean, the Painter comes pretty close to breaking the 4th wall--he's totally incongruous with the rest of the game's aesthetic and fantasy setting, using the placeholder art as he does. It's almost like an authorial intrusion into the game's fiction: "I'm in your castle" is a funny allusion to lolcats jokes, but it might also have another layer of significance that adds to the pomo humor of the game. And the use of Tricky is a classic strategy of intertextuality, as well as an ironic nod to the Trickster figure from folklore (Loki in Norse myth, Coyote in Native American myth, etc.), who disrupts the system he's part of. As I said, in the end it really makes no difference, but I think it's fun to puzzle these things out, and I think doing so reveals another layer of smart-alecky meta-humor in an already funny game.

There was some other guy on here who had a set of theories about the intertextual relationship between CC and AH, and I thought that was lots of fun to read, too.

This is what being back at school does to me. I go to play a video game to relax and take a break from thinking, but the parts of my brain that I use all day at school won't turn off when I'm trying to have some mindless fun. The real lesson here? Education is evil! Just kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree, but then disagree. I'm Gilgamesh101, remember me? Well, I mean I added you, or whatever. But you remember me, right?

What's up Gil?! Of course I remember you. Our Insane Mode runs were legendary. Well, legendary in my own mind anyway. I still can't get past insane Full Moon.

I'm glad that you both agree and disagree. That's the hallmark of a strong thinker. So what do you think? Are the secrets of Castle Crashers to be found in our own minds, or in Tom Fulp's? Or should we dispense with the snobspeak and shut up and play?

Here's the secret that I want to know: where is all the missing weaponry? And why does that 2x4 thing keep vanishing from my frog?

Use the ladder trick ie...go up ladder use splash magic or lvl 50 combo,go down ladder lvl 50 combo etc...simple and effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree, but then disagree. I'm Gilgamesh101, remember me? Well, I mean I added you, or whatever. But you remember me, right?

What's up Gil?! Of course I remember you. Our Insane Mode runs were legendary. Well, legendary in my own mind anyway. I still can't get past insane Full Moon.

I'm glad that you both agree and disagree. That's the hallmark of a strong thinker. So what do you think? Are the secrets of Castle Crashers to be found in our own minds, or in Tom Fulp's? Or should we dispense with the snobspeak and shut up and play?

Here's the secret that I want to know: where is all the missing weaponry? And why does that 2x4 thing keep vanishing from my frog?

Use the ladder trick ie...go up ladder use splash magic or lvl 50 combo,go down ladder lvl 50 combo etc...simple and effective.

They might have patched that if it's a glitch. If not, then I'm guessing it's a strategy. I'll try it, Castle Crashers master (no-life).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a glitch.When you use the ladder they will follow,as soon as you're off the ladder turn around and use the lvl 50 drill combo,this will hit all the stove faces even if they're still on the ladder.Then rinse and repeat,i used to do it the standard way of just slugging it out,but this way is quicker n easier.

If you have any probs i'll post a vid of my Green doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's up Gil?! Of course I remember you. Our Insane Mode runs were legendary. Well, legendary in my own mind anyway. I still can't get past insane Full Moon.

I'm glad that you both agree and disagree. That's the hallmark of a strong thinker. So what do you think? Are the secrets of Castle Crashers to be found in our own minds, or in Tom Fulp's? Or should we dispense with the snobspeak and shut up and play?

Here's the secret that I want to know: where is all the missing weaponry? And why does that 2x4 thing keep vanishing from my frog?

You know, I found Insane Mode to be really difficult until I started using potions. Not sure if this might be your problem as well?

And also, the correct answer is Tom Fulp's. To bring a little relativity into the argument, a plane taking off of a runway might need to be going 150mph to take off. However, that same plane taking off of a moving carrier might say that it only needs to be going 140mph to take off. Obviously, 150mph is the correct answer, but the 140mph is perceived because the carrier is causing a 10mph wind which is dropping the speed that the plane needs to go in order to achieve take-off.

So, if it's perceived that the princess was switched, yet Tom Fulp (who will be the observer who sees all this from the shore) says that the princess wasn't switched, then his answer must be the correct one. So if her hair color does switch, maybe we should assume that it's because she's having a Joker-esque break. After all, after being dragged across gravel and tied up by rope, her face must be a mess. Why not hide behind makeup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And also, the correct answer is Tom Fulp's. To bring a little relativity into the argument, a plane taking off of a runway might need to be going 150mph to take off. However, that same plane taking off of a moving carrier might say that it only needs to be going 140mph to take off. Obviously, 150mph is the correct answer, but the 140mph is perceived because the carrier is causing a 10mph wind which is dropping the speed that the plane needs to go in order to achieve take-off.

So, if it's perceived that the princess was switched, yet Tom Fulp (who will be the observer who sees all this from the shore) says that the princess wasn't switched, then his answer must be the correct one. So if her hair color does switch, maybe we should assume that it's because she's having a Joker-esque break. After all, after being dragged across gravel and tied up by rope, her face must be a mess. Why not hide behind makeup?

The plane must still be going at 150mph to take off, is like throwing a rock from a car, you throw it at 30mph and the car is going at 100mph, so the rock's speed is 130mph, same for the plane 140mph+10mph of wind is still 150mph

As for the answer of the swap or no swap of the princess, if i was a dev i would say you to take your own theories, let the kids have dreams and stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, the correct answer is Tom Fulp's. To bring a little relativity into the argument, a plane taking off of a runway might need to be going 150mph to take off. However, that same plane taking off of a moving carrier might say that it only needs to be going 140mph to take off. Obviously, 150mph is the correct answer, but the 140mph is perceived because the carrier is causing a 10mph wind which is dropping the speed that the plane needs to go in order to achieve take-off.

So, if it's perceived that the princess was switched, yet Tom Fulp (who will be the observer who sees all this from the shore) says that the princess wasn't switched, then his answer must be the correct one. So if her hair color does switch, maybe we should assume that it's because she's having a Joker-esque break. After all, after being dragged across gravel and tied up by rope, her face must be a mess. Why not hide behind makeup?

But relativity also argues that the truth of any given data set is contingent upon perspective. The most well-known example is that of a hypothetical astronaut that could travel to a nearby star and back at a velocity close to the speed of light. From the perspective of those left behind on Earth, years or even decades would elapse before the astronaut's return. But because time passes at a different rate with increased velocity, the astronaut would return home a young man. What is the "correct" age of the astronaut? Is he an elderly man or a young man? The truth would seem to be relative: observers on Earth are correct to say that many years have passed between the astronaut's departure and his return, and that he must therefore be old. But the astronaut is equally correct to insist that only a few years have elapsed and that he is therefore still young. Neither one of these truths somehow invalidates the other: they are both "correct" from the perspectives that produced them.

Now, it's not clear how applicable the physics of relativity are to discourse on the interpretation of artworks or other cultural artifacts. But the argument inherent in some famous Cubist and Futurist paintings would appear to be that the truth of any object is multiple, contingent, relative. Consider Braque's "Woman with a Guitar":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... 400pix.jpg

or Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ducha ... ircase.jpg

In these works, no one perspective is privileged as being correct or "more true" than the others. Relativity gives rise to relativism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness gracious, this thread is making Serioustown look like a circus. :o

It's too bad Tom Fulp doesn't ever check out the forums, I'm sure he'd like to see this destruction he's caused (and by that I mean destruction I caused with his words).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Coherent sentences-

Wait, i thought the astronaut would be actually aged since his cells move faster and stuff.

Not to mention that no object can't go even near the light speed for its mass would be infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goodness gracious, this thread is making Serioustown look like a circus. :o

It's too bad Tom Fulp doesn't ever check out the forums, I'm sure he'd like to see this destruction he's caused (and by that I mean destruction I caused with his words).

Destruction...or deconstruction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

Sorry. I couldn't resist. Seriously though, I've been having loads of fun with this conversation. Thanks to the original poster for kickstarting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, i thought the astronaut would be actually aged since his cells move faster and stuff.

Not to mention that no object can't go even near the light speed for its mass would be infinite.

The astronaut ages at his normal rate from his own perspective. From Earth's perspective, he ages "more slowly." And yes, no manmade object can move close to the speed of light yet. That's why it's just a thought experiment. But the effects of relativity can be observed even at the speeds we can achieve. An astronaut that spends 6 months in orbit around the Earth is a fraction of a second younger from his perspective than from ours. Not much, I'll grant you, but the principle of relativity still holds: the faster you move, the more slowly time appears to move for you from an outside observer's perspective. So, there are two truths about how old our hypothetical astronaut is: the truth of his own perspective, and the truth of our perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this