Gaiden96 wrote...
You speak based on "what-ifs" and "maybes". It's impossible to do this.
It doesn't seem to me that there's a single "maybe" or "if" in what I said. If I use the word "maybe" is only as a rethorical or sarcastic way, but not as an uncertainity.
If you think otherwise please quote me back on where do you think that I have said "maybe it's so" concerning these philosophical aspects. I've used "maybe it's this or that" only in reference to things nobody is certain about in this moment (as if this is truly an endind in the full sense). I cannot find it, but maybe (again, used sarcastically) you can.
Gaiden96 wrote...
You're not stating facts, you're using gibberish to confuse people by making them think you have a higher thought process or are more intelligent than others.
So a thing it's gibberish just because you don't know it. Ok, as you like.
I don't pretend anything at all. All I said can be easily found studying the things I talked about. If you think I'm saying something wrong you have nothing more to do than find out if that's so by researching about them. If then you find that I'm wrong I will be more than glad to debate about it and either admit it without problems.
As of now you just don't want to listen because you don't like what I say, that's all.
There are no theories at all in what I said concerning the philosophical aspects, not "ifs", not "maybes", nothing as that. All I said it's usually common knowledge of those that have a certain background (as that of writers).
Gaiden96 wrote...
It's ridiculous and says more about you than you realize.
What's ridicolous? That I continue to try to make you understand something that you have not the minimal intention of researching upon just because it must be wrong? Yes, maybe you are right, but we are here to debate and I do it no matter who I have in front.
Gaiden96 wrote...
It's not the basis for some sort of philosophy, it's a plot device in writing. It relies on mere chance, and as such doesn't suit things.
The Deus Est Machina theme (or better, the development coming to that theme), as I said, was findable already in all the Synthetic vs. organics narrative. They didn't introduce nothing "out of thin air". It was already there, in the background. All the speech about order vs. chaos is in the philosophy of that theme, and that type of theme has its roots tied to the occidental concept of God and that concept exapnds to that of God vs Lucifer/Man etc. (that's even a more broader philosophical concept with even more complexity, but in its most simplicity is order vs chaos/good vs. evil/white vs. black - full duality in very short words).
There's nothing about change or "plot device". The philosophical aspect behind it was introduced immediately. As I said I did already presumed that the "ending encounter" was something as that because the philosophy behind it spelled it in full (it could have been also another thing, but there were not many other options).
Also this talk about inconsistency, in fact, is completely wrong just for this (but I didn't introduce it yet because it was premature; see? the premature theme returns
). Philosophically speaking if they gave you another type of ending (bar another one) than they would have been inconsistent with the philosophy behind the theme.
This is a fact, as it is a fact that you cannot comprehend this if you don't know the philosophical aspect buried within.
Gaiden96 wrote...
If this is what you meant by "you don't question God" that would be comprehensible, but still terrible writing.
No, it's not this. "You don't question God" is referred to the complain "Shepard doen't question/oppose the Starchild". It is something different. Let's leave it at that for now, it's too complicate to explain it here.
Gaiden96 wrote...
Story arc reffers to Shepard's story, and by extension, most characters associated with him/her. It wasn't meant to continue afterwards, at least not that we were told. An ending can be a cliffhanger in the middle of a story, like in between novels. If this is done on what was addvertised as the end of the planed trilogy it is generaly not very well received by the audience, as is the current situation.
But also in this case it is only because the audience expects something different. There's nothing wrong technically on doing it. I can understand that people could prefer something different (especially in this type of context, as gaming), but this has nothing to do with "bad writing".
Gaiden96 wrote...
What I'm saying is not a rule in writing. It's what we were promised and didn't get.
You didn't get what you expected? I can get it. However common sense would dictate at this point to wait a little and see what it happens next before prematurely bandaging your head until you don't know if it is wounded or not.
As I've repeated many times all of this talk is premature not knowing the future development in store. Until you don't have the full picture fighting for something different is like acting like Judas, that betrayed Jesus expecting something totally different than he in reality was come for (and presuming he did knew what it was already).
Gaiden96 wrote...
If this is what you offer your readers I can't fathom you being successful in any way shape or form unless your audience is the kind that disregards logic for cheap thrills and terrible, "dream-like" resolutions.
Audience of books it's usually much more open to "suprises". They go with the flow, usually. Naturally there must be something that justifies the surprise after, but until that happens nobody complains in the meantime.
And usually readers of certain narrative (and please dont take this badly, it's just the truth) have much more background in the philosophical aspects of certain themes so they can better understand the subtleties behind. Not in all cases, but the percentual is certainly higher.
Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 12:26 .
Retour en haut
