Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Discussion of anything and everything that happens within the Iris Alternate Reality Game.

Moderator: Moderators

Sno564
Data [Undefined]
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by Sno564 »

Not sure about the other things, but the gradient is probably because it's a Jpeg.

Jpegs are compressed, and often create a gradient between two colors.

Nice finds. Not sure how important they are, but the fact that the third one is noticeably taller is bugging me...
Dunia
Data [Conditional]
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:39 pm

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by Dunia »

The original picture was of two frames and they chopped in the third. That might be the only reason the other one is off by a few pixels. They could have lined it up just close enough and figured it was okay.
3zz
Data [Conditional]
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:01 pm

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by 3zz »

Not for Bungie, coïncidence doesnt occur when its Bungie.
Maimbot 9000
Data [Authenticated]
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:46 pm

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by Maimbot 9000 »

Given the somewhat sloppy way this has unfolded so far, it wouldn't surprise me if the way Dunia described it is exactly what happened. We've yet to see any of these small details turn out to be anything but mistakes or irrelevant.

We've seen, for instance:

• Graphic designer's name and info in the SOTA membership application pdf (which itself was sloppily left in the page's comments and was never actually used for anything)
• Sonogram information being used in the first infestation image, apparently just because it looked, like, official and stuff
• Information being left in the images about what stock house they'd been purchased from
• Probably lots more I'm forgetting

So, yeah, I think it's completely believable that the slightly sloppy way this latest image has been put together is just that. Sloppy.
thebruce
Data [Authenticated]
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: KW, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by thebruce »

it's not a sonogram
Dalthanas
Data [Authenticated]
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by Dalthanas »

I have to strongly disagree with you about how "Sloppy" this ARG has been, and your subsequent dismissal of microscopic investigation like the stuff going on in this thread.

I've been saying from the beginning that while the waits sometimes suck, it's all going according to plan. I happen to think that Memento's moon theory has a good chance of being right (it was a post of mine about the lunar connections between the glyph, stonehenge and other things that got his smart little wheels spinning), and if that's the case then Bungie has been on point the ENTIRE time. Just because it's not our timeline doesn't mean it's sloppy. People were upset because it was slow and "OMGZ ILB WAS SO GREAT" when in fact ILB moved much slower. I think your disdain is misplaced, and the result of people just wanting more, sooner.

There have been some things left in images etc. But they're left in the dark recesses we ferret out, and I for one am not willing to sacrifice bungie to the dark gods of ARG simply because they didn't account for EVERY comment line in every image.

As for the SOTA pdf application form, I am convinced it will play a role in this ARG, and for you to dismiss it as "sloppily left in the page's comments" is a little premature. SOTA was present at the start of the ARG, and will likely come into play again at the end (bungie does love their circles). There is no way it was just "accidently" left there, with such a cryptic e-mail addy as doyougrok. It will become relevant when we really do understand.

So instead of just chalking everything up their being sloppy, cut them a little slack as they are human, and appreciate the true scope of some of the stuff they're doing. Perhaps the size difference is a simple formatting error, resulting in several pixels being off, or maybe its simply a part of the story without being a clue (a picture taken at a later date, or from a different station perhaps), but I think you're being fairly harsh in your assessment so far.

(/fanboy rant)

edit: No need for a new reply, but agreed Bruce, the purpose of this post wasn't to bring up the ILB>Iris debate again, but merely to rebut the claim of "it's just Bungie being sloppy" which I think stems from that debate.
Last edited by Dalthanas on Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thebruce
Data [Authenticated]
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: KW, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by thebruce »

well, just to clarify, ILB had a number of threads going at once, and while new things may have been revealed slow, it followed a twice a week schedule, with lots to dissect, organize, and study in between.

ILB anyhow shouldn't be conpared to Iris because they're obviously very different monsters.

The complaints about Iris being slow are simply because really, we've had nothing to do now for 2 weeks except pore over stuff we've already got, without revealing anything new but wild spec after wild spec. That's the basis of the 'slowness' of Iris - but it's only slow when compared to something. As you say, if our assumption for the next server is right, then they're on schedule, on track, as they'd planned. It just feels slow because we've done nothing nor had anything productive in the past 2 weeks.

But if you don't have such high expectations (a side-effect of continuously comparing it to ILB), then it won't feel slow.
Maimbot 9000
Data [Authenticated]
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:46 pm

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by Maimbot 9000 »

I certainly didn''t mean to bring up the ILB vs. Iris argument again, and I do think Bungie are, erm, "on schedule." I'm enjoying this game! I just think the tiny "errors" in the infestation images being discussed are the result of quick work rather than some deliberate clue. My list was not meant as a litany of complaints, just prior examples of several pieces of so-called hidden info leading to dead ends and being the result of, well, I stand by my term "sloppy." People running an ARG should know we're going to take these images apart in every conceivable way.

And yes, thebruce, that image did incorporate a sonogram image. The image itself was not a sonogram, but the tech-y looking information/text was from a sonogram printout.
Dunia
Data [Conditional]
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:39 pm

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by Dunia »

Sorry about the off-topic sidebar.

The same people who did ILB are not doing Iris, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I've been going off of the assumption that this was an in-house, Bungie created ARG, and it is their first time.

I don't mind cutting them some slack on a couple of things like a few pixels being out of whack, spelling errors, or left over metadata.

This is my first time participating in an ARG. I came in right after Server 2 unlocked. I learned about ILB after it ended. Even without having anything to compare it to, it does feel kind of slow. Giving us a bunch of clues from server 2 that didn't lead anywhere (or won't until we keep googling the same phrases I guess), the glyphs popping up but just being used for marketing, the storyline not really developing after a several weeks. I don't know what I should be expecting, but the excitement has gone down some. Hopefully it picks back up soon.
3zz
Data [Conditional]
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:01 pm

Re: Next Clue in Infestation Measurements?

Unread post by 3zz »

Okay now Im getting fed up with this too:
• Sonogram information being used in the first infestation image, apparently just because it looked, like, official and stuff
It wasn't necessarrilly sonogram information. On sonograms, the information that showed simmilarities, stated the amount of brightness the sonogram was made with (if I recall correctly). But brightness is not a measurement restricted solely to sonograms. The same kind of graph could very well also be used in microscope images to state what brightnes was used there. Also, the same theory applies to the other copied information on the image. The whole image was never inteded to be a sonogram, nor was the information superimposed over it taken from a sonogram. All they did was use a general system of measurement.

If someone says a building is a mile high you dont accuse them of sloppilly using road-measuring information, do you?

Now, getting back on topic, I do think the 'mistakes' as we would be led to believe are a clue. Im just not sure as to what they tell us. Perhaps coordinates to find on an earlier picture?
Last edited by 3zz on Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply