One would think if you were doing this just for your own convenience and were truly neutral, you would have given the opposition more time of day...
Havent i given plenty of links for both sides of the arguement already in this thread AND other threads?? Here we go again. Copypasta BRB.
smudboy: (now with EC complains)
Archengeia: there are 5 more videos of 2 hours each
http://galacticpillow.com/2012/04/02/editorial-the-reapers-advocate-a-different-take-on-the-mass-effect-3-ending/#comment-1770 (i like this one. It actually would be a nice thing to have if the writers of ME3 actually took the time to put that shit on the narrative itself, rather than the "you have to know this from the real world and read this Sci Fi to blah blah")
And of course:
A:Indeed. But did ANY of is arguments (the first articles at least) had ANYTHING to do with what was shown in the narrative? if not, then its head cannon. You are filling the holes that the writers didnt care to fill themselves and you are not getting paid for it.
Yes, they did.
O Rly? then care to elaborate what does "cycles" have to do with anything about the ending being badly handled? and how come that FCH didnt use the "cycles" example once more in the other articles IF the ending was trully about that?
I will wait
B: And STILL there is people making commments on the flaws on his logic.
And? That is what discussion is for. What do you think we are doing right now? And have been for multiple pages now?
Basically nothing. FLC saids that a few plot holes are tolerable if they serve a good dramatic purpose and you say that we have to judge the WHOLE work to say if its objectively bad. Ok...........there are plenty of evidence (like the smudboy videos) that not only the game itself its flawed, but the whole narrative of the series is flawed.
Other than that, i dont see why everyone here is having a problem seeing that.
Dont you think that if you want to say something then just DO SO ALREADY? its the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) but he goes on and on that seems more like a red herring rather than a real discusion.
The KISS principle doesn't really apply to making an effective argument.
Brevety is the soul of wit. He is supposed to be a profesional whose job is to NOTICE AND CRITICE this kind of crap, yet he can do it in its own colums. Shorter doesnt mean better but when the argument he makes is filler and doesnt add to anything at all (like the blogger Nick Alomos and its WRITERS DISEASE blog did) then the KISS would apply.
He went 3 articles and people still dont get what he means. Its either the readers being stupid or the writer doesnt communicate properly.
Have you read the comments section of those articles? Obviously some did. Hell, I would guess most of his critics got what he meant; you kind of have to in order to make a counter argument. If someone "gets" your argument, that does not mean they have to automatically agree with it.
I dont mean "dont get" as "i dont understand what you wrote", i mean it in the sense of "i dont understand how you end up in that conclusion".
Kinda like The Catalyst. We "get" what he wants to do but we dont get "why" a logical and cold AI would even go ahead with a plan so idiotic. We understand the chain of logic but not the end result of that chain. How does FCH see this "cycle" thing as a valid example for a broken narrative? how is this new theme/message better than the previously stablished one of "Unity despite difference", like Lord of The Rings in SPACE. If making an statement that has NOTHING to do with the narrative or what was shown to the audience all along, is enough to make something art, then by that logic, Tolkien should have made an anti-drug message at the end of LoTR.
Just when Frollo is about to drop the ring to the lava on the mountain of DOOM, Tom Bombadil appears and says that the ring doesnt contain the essense of Sauron, it also contains Gandalf's desire for smoking from his pipe (or whatever the fuck he smokes everyone once in a while) and since he never stopped smoking, evil will reform over and over until he abandon his eeeeeeevil addiction.
Because, as you know, the story was about the evils of drugs all along, didnt you know? what you say? that doesnt make sense or was even foreshadowed in the least?? well, its Tolkien vision, he can sabotage is own work whenever he wants, even when he made an essay "On Fairies" on how the storyteller fails if he looses the willing suspension of disbelief of his audience. Fuck that too, his NEW vision is better.
C:Indeed. But again, FCH could have made its point clearer like Shamus did without making a wall of text.
In the first article critiqueing the Hulk, Shamus had a wall of text. In his original article criticizing the ME3 ending, he linked to a 40 minute video on the matter, and multiple long essays.
Yes, and that made sense. Instead of rambling, shamus does this: "This is bad because blah blah and here is a link to prove it. And even if we look at it in this angle is also wrong and here is moar evidence and blah blah"
FCH just rambles from point to point and expect the audience to absorv and remember every single bit like if they had ANY connection.
EDIT: I am in a rush, i hope the links will give the people of the thread something to think about. BRB shutting down the lights.