Tempdude0 said:
The problem there is that the boss isn't inside your head when you're doing these things. If he were, those plans would be revealed. There aren't many ways to hide what you're doing when someone can see what you're thinking.
Just in case you didn't know, Rose and her son didn't have nanomachines. This is easily deducible as the A.I's don't know the relation of John (the son) and Raiden. Aplying this simple limitation in the example I showed, the obtained information from the boss's cameras are limited to the position, amount and quality of the cameras... Just like the nanomachines. Come on, this is very simple. You don't understand? That's because you don't wanna understand it or don't wanna lose the argument.
Tempdude0 said:
Even assuming they can only get a "feel" for what's going on, we have biological "tells" that would give most people away.
What that has to do with anything?
Tempdude0 said:
Don't ask me why the child was so important, but for some reason it was since his wife felt the need to hide it from the patriots.
Maybe because it was HER SON?
Tempdude0 said:
As for liquid, he was working for the patriots...Well, liquid Ocelot was...Wait, I'm getting confused here.
Simple. Ocelot was working for the patriots, even though he had other agenda. He made all that "Liquid Ocelot" thing to deceive the A.I's, and make them believe he was Liquid, in order to force them to use Solid Snake as their counterattack measure. Making a checkmate, ignoring the success of Solid, Ocelot will win.
Tempdude0 said:
Snake was railing against the patriots, so helping him would help them how?
He wasn't railing against the patriots. He was railing against Liquid. The most obvious thing in the game, geez.
Tempdude0 said:
People may attempt to deceive them and circumvent their setup. The patriots have a way into these peoples head. Why not just use it willy nilly on anyone even tangentially related to their operations, or anyone of importance for that matter?
Break their own rules to make it all boring? You sure know how to criticize the writing.
Tempdude0 said:
I've said the plot goes convoluted for a while. Check a few posts back. You probably missed it with all that reading you weren't doing. Seeing as I've only said "convoluted" as opposed to "overly convoluted" I guess that particular misunderstanding goes down as my bad.
You didn't catch my drift. I exposed that the "over-convoluted and confusing plot" to be rather simple.
Tempdude0 said:
Alright then mister picky, SELF hypnosis than. Better? Sheesh.
Picky me? You gotta be kidding me. And you must really use quotes, I can't connect that "correction" on anything I've said. Self hypnosis? When?
Tempdude0 said:
Fine, in order. As a young man he worked as a GRUE Major (MGS 3) but at the end was revealed to be working for the KGB as ADAM, but under the DCI (that'd be the Director of the CIA) Later, he worked with Foxhound terrorists (The thing I referred to as a mercenary group. Splitting hairs, but still not quite right on my part.) and at the end he is revealed to be in league with Solidus, the other evil clone. Now sporting liquid snakes arm (after losing it to the cyborg ninja) he slowly begins to be taken over the personality of liquid snake prompting the change to Liquid Ocelot. A possible explanation being his parentage. Finally, it is revealed to all be in act as Ocelot is in actuality working for Big Boss (MGS 4) There, a blow by blow.
My point wasn't order, my point is that you mixed up several stages of Ocelot's whole life into a single bad explained stage, ignoring the most simple objective in his life. He, as his mother, remained loyal to the end.
Tempdude0 said:
As for the ninja, again, I may be mixing up two different ones. Lets ignore that. However, there was a ninja from N.A.S.A. Look it up.
You may want to show me something about it, although I don't think how this could be any relevant.
Tempdude0 said:
To the language comment, the problem one person had was that perhaps people involved in this couldn't come to an agreement on what certain words meant. Since I was working from the dictionary, there was no interpretation needed for my speech. I was in no way saying my word choice lent objectivity to my arguments. That's just silly. At least read what I'm writing please.
Based in your own speech, I stated that your arguments weren't objective. Then you replied that you were objective because you were using the dictionary. Who's not reading?
Tempdude0 said:
The examples may make it tedious, but aside from pointing out similar flaws in similar works, what would you have me do to prove my point? Would you like me to just spout off that I R RITE! without backing it up?
Arguments do not need examples. They're only an addition as you have said. If your examples instead of helping, distract, then they're not good examples at all.