Jump to content
SRPG Tryhard

Theme of Conquest

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Specta said:

@Ottservia There is merit in asking for someone to provide some evidence because you're interested in hearing their opinion more in depth but it's not as productive to just tell them they're bad at arguing as a whole because they didn't expand enough yet. That is not productive. That went from 0 to 10 too fast

You could stop at just "what other supports are like Kellam's, do you think?" and let them provide more in-depth detailing about their opinion, not making it into a critique about their argumentative methods. That lets you address that you don't think it's enough information and you want more without making it weird, man

Remember a good, productive discussion doesn't necessarily mean everyone tosses out an air-tight argument with bibliography off the bat. Sometimes you gotta prompt each other and that's okay

On this fine, yeah I will admit I was rather harsh which I apologize for. However, if you simply respond “it’s just my opinion” to me prompting for an explanation that is by no means a good argument at all and I am well within my rights to say that it is. Cause it is!!! You’re not arguing me at all! You’re doing nothing but deflecting my argument under the guise of subjectivity when that’s not how that works

 

22 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

No, it's not. It's an aspect of a creative medium that is purely subjective. That's like saying I can prove whether or not a character or plot has depth or nuance. Those terms mean different things to different people and cannot be objectively proven to exist.

Tonal inconsistency is not subjective solely for the fact that you’re using the term “inconsistency”. You can prove that something is inconsistent. For example SoV is thematically inconsistent. Alm is shown to be portrayed as a static change character throughout the majority of the story however then at the end he apologizes for being wrong when the story has never shown that he was. That is inconsistent and something I can prove is inconsistent. Tonal inconsistency is similar. You can prove it or disprove it. Inconsistency means it’s contradictory in some fashion. That is something that can be proven. You can prove the tone of a story to be contradictory. For example, a well established grim dark story suddenly resorting to slapstick comedy out of the blue without any prompting. Or whenever fairy tail decides to shove ass and tits in your face for no real reason. Speaking of fairy tail there’s actually a really good example of tonal inconsistency in that manga. (spoilers for risque content)

Spoiler

Number 12: Kyoka tortures Erza | Fairy Tail AminoFairy Tail Chapter 365 Page 26Fairy Tail Chapter 368 Page 15

 

The issue with this scene is that it's supposed to be a moment where Erza is brutally tortured for information but with the way these panels are drawn I would not blame you if you thought it was meant to be titilating. Like it's very tonally inconsistent because Mashima doesn't know whether or not he wants the audience to be horny for Erza or feel bad for her. I have no clue but both tones are at odds with another. It's frankly kind of disgusting on Mashima's part if you ask me but whatever. That's actual tonal inconsistency. 

 

35 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Someone's thoughts on said facts, however...now those are indeed subjective.

Good we actually agree on something moving on.

 

35 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Once again implying that an opinion can be incorrect

because it can be incorrect. Personal taste cannot be incorrect and yes there is a difference.

 

37 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Never said it was.

yes you did by saying "an opinion cannot be incorrect" you are essentially using the subjectivity card as a shield. Because, yes, opinions can be incorrect if they are based in incorrect information. Saying "Severa is a poorly written because she is one dimensional" is an incorrect opinion because she is provably not one dimensional. If you simply assert that you dislike her that is purely matter of personal taste that cannot be proven or disproven. I cannot prove that you like or dislike something. I can prove that Severa is a complex character though. That is something I can prove. I can prove that she has supports that add layers to her character. Saying that she is one dimensional is not true because that's provably false. Whether or not you like her beyond that though is a matter of personal taste. Again like I said, things having context and meaning to them isn't magically going to make someone begin to care. You accuse me of mixing up objective and subjective but I think that is more true of you than it is of me. 

 

47 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Because, after playing through the game multiple times, that is the impression I was left with. That's it.

that impression can still be wrong though. By that same logic I can say that Greil's death had no affect on Ike's character and that was the impression I was left with even though that is provably not true regardless of how you personally feel about it. Because again, investment in a story is subjective. You can even say I was left with the impression that ike was a mary sue and you can't argue because that's just my own personal impressions of his character which is false. He isn't a mary sue. Like the problem with this line of thinking is that you're blaming the story for your personal taste. Like you're doing it backwards. you're not reading a story and making connections to form a conclusion. You have a conclusion and you're cherry picking information to try and justify that conclusion. It should be the other way around. You should find the evidence before making the conclusion. At least that's the impression I get from you anyway. 

 

1 hour ago, twilitfalchion said:

et me make this clear. If I am discussing something, what I say is my own opinion--my thoughts--unless I explicitly say I'm speaking objectively. Which I rarely do anyway.

The minute you try to justify it is the moment it becomes more than just an opinion plain and simple. The minute you assert something about a story with objectivist claims is the minute you step out of the grounds of subjectivity. Saying "characters are one dimensional or poorly written" are objectivist statements. 

5 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

You cant just exclude him. He still counts as evidence. 

 

he does count but that's just one example when Twilit was saying awakening characters as a whole were like that. And even then Kellam is a bad example because the fact that he is so bland and forgettable is kind of the joke. He's supposed to be so boring and forgettable that he's memorable ironically. That's the joke and I find it to be a clever one all things considered. Unlike actual boring characters like Stahl and Priam.

 

1 hour ago, Yexin said:

you see it's not exactly easy to create a healthy discussion with someone who's already sure to be right unless proven wrong, and even then said someone dismisses those proofs due to them being "stupid" and spreading misinformation, stating that "not all discussion is good discussion" 

because that's the problem i'm seeing in your arguments: not what you say, but what your mindset is while saying them

 

also, since "not all discussion is good discussion", then let me ask you: "is yours good? do you think you're doing everything you can to make those discussions you decide to take on healthy and good? or is it always others' fault because all they always do is spreading misinformation and stupid arguments?"

here's the thing though. If I can prove that your argument is flawed and faulty maybe you shouldn't use that argument anymore. That's all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

On this fine, yeah I will admit I was rather harsh which I apologize for. However, if you simply respond “it’s just my opinion” to me prompting for an explanation that is by no means a good argument at all and I am well within my rights to say that it is. Cause it is!!! You’re not arguing me at all! You’re doing nothing but deflecting my argument under the guise of subjectivity when that’s not how that works

I agree if you had just asked for an explanation and they had responded "it's just my opinion." In that situation, I would've been like "well, that doesn't help the discussion at all" but that isn't exactly what happened. If someone says I'm wrong and also tells me in the same breath that I'm bad at arguing at the beginning of an interaction, I'm more likely to address the attack against my knowledge of argumentative rhetoric than entertain the call for evidence. One is a lot more insulting to me, which distracts from the discussion at hand. You feel?

Edited by Specta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Specta said:

I agree if you had just asked for an explanation and they had responded "it's just my opinion." In that situation, I would've been like "well, that doesn't help the discussion at all" but that isn't exactly what happened. If someone says I'm wrong and also tells me in the same breath that I'm bad at arguing, I'm more likely to address the attack against my knowledge of argumentative rhetoric than entertain the call for evidence. One is a lot more insulting to me, which distracts from the discussion at hand. You feel?

oh yeah definitely I completely agree. I was waaay too harsh and jumping to conclusions. That is my bad for escalating things farther than they needed to be. Again I apologize to @twilitfalchion for acting that way. It's just that I have seen him do that to me many times before and it just kind of built up inside of me. I shouldn't have exploded mind you and I am by no means trying to shift blame. I'm just stating my observations here. 

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Again I apologize to @twilitfalchion for acting that way. It's just that I have seen him do that to me many times before and it just kind of built up inside of me. 

Fine. I've done nothing to you besides try to have a meaningful discussion. I don't know what you're talking about.

My original comment wasn't even directed towards you in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twilitfalchion said:

Fine. I've done nothing to you besides try to have a meaningful discussion. I don't know what you're talking about.

I can bring up examples of you doing such but this isn't the time for that and besides things have already gotten way too heated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lightcosmo said:

You cant just exclude him. He still counts as evidence.

Well now, including Kellam goes against the point of his character 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

You cant just exclude him. He still counts as evidence. 

 

What about the one between Fred and the male avatar? All of those stem from a moment early on in the game (which is nice) and was mainly used for comic relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

he does count but that's just one example when Twilit was saying awakening characters as a whole were like that. And even then Kellam is a bad example because the fact that he is so bland and forgettable is kind of the joke. He's supposed to be so boring and forgettable that he's memorable ironically. That's the joke and I find it to be a clever one all things considered. Unlike actual boring characters like Stahl and Priam.

That doesnt mean it's good writing. And the logic, "that justifies it" doesnt work. How are his supports interesting at all? You tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

That doesnt mean it's good writing. And the logic, "that justifies it" doesnt work. How are his supports interesting at all? You tell me.

I mean of the ones I’ve read? They’re all really boring bland and not at all interesting. In any other circumstance he’d be a garbage character but personally I’m willing to cut them a bit of slack because most of it is intentional. Unlike, Stahl, he was written intentionally to be boring. Kellam unironically has probably one of my favorite designs in the series because it’s so plain and boring that it unironically stands out among other characters who actually have personality in their designs. I find that to be impressive. He’s so unmemorable to the point where he loops right back around to being memorable ironically enough. Sure he’s only got the one joke but credit where credit is due that one joke is a pretty clever one.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ottservia said:

You miss my point. My point in saying that suspension of disbelief is subjective is that it is impossible to use it as any kind of metric because you cannot prove suspension of disbelief. It is entirely subjective. If you assert a story is objectively bad because it broke your suspension of disbelief in some way then that argument is flawed inherently. You cannot prove your suspension of disbelief was broken. There’s no evidence to support a claim like that simply because it is wholly subjective. If I assert that a story is bad because it contradicts its rules/themes that’s something that can be proven and backed up with hard evidence from the text. You’re thinking about my argument too much from a black and white mindset. The problem with your little counter example there is that like I said before investment in a story is inherently subjective. Things having context and meaning to them isn’t magically going to make someone begin to care even if they can see the value in what it accomplishes.

While you may not be able to prove that your suspension of disbelief was broken, you can provide textual evidence from the text as to why it would have broken for you. In that case you're backing up your opinion of the text with evidence. Just because investment is subjective doesn't mean its not worth discussing or criticising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

While you may not be able to prove that your suspension of disbelief was broken, you can provide textual evidence from the text as to why it would have broken for you. In that case you're backing up your opinion of the text with evidence. Just because investment is subjective doesn't mean its not worth discussing or criticising.

I mean not really? I think it depends. Like if you say this moment in a story broke your suspension of disbelief then I can just as easily counter by saying it didn’t break mine. We can’t argue the point any further than that. Unlike with inconsistencies in themes and such there’s no discussion to be had in regards to suspension of disbelief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I mean of the ones I’ve read? They’re all really boring bland and not at all interesting. In any other circumstance he’d be a garbage character but personally I’m willing to cut them a bit of slack because most of it is intentional. Unlike, Stahl, he was written intentionally to be boring. Kellam unironically has probably one of my favorite designs in the series because it’s so plain and boring that it unironically stands out among other characters who actually have personality in their designs. I find that to be impressive. He’s so unmemorable to the point where he loops right back around to being memorable ironically enough. Sure he’s only got the one joke but credit where credit is due that one joke is a pretty clever one.

Y'see, I dont think it's okay to just "cut them some slack." Its not okay to make a character intentionally boring in any circumstance. 

I disagree that its clever. I dont find it funny at all, interesting at all, or clever at all. 

And you even said hes a boring character, because it's TRUE! The devs failed in writing him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I mean not really? I think it depends. Like if you say this moment in a story broke your suspension of disbelief then I can just as easily counter by saying it didn’t break mine. We can’t argue the point any further than that. Unlike with inconsistencies in themes and such there’s no discussion to be had in regards to suspension of disbelief. 

Which is where discussing contrivance comes in. If you want to objectively look at a story and discuss that, discussing how a story does contrivance and what about it it does well/poorly is the objective component of arguing about suspension of disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

Which is where discussing contrivance comes in. If you want to objectively look at a story and discuss that, discussing how a story does contrivance and what about it it does well/poorly is the objective component of arguing about suspension of disbelief.

How does that make sense? Let’s back up a minute and really get back on the same page. What does “contrivance” mean?

well if we go by the dictionary definition we have two definitions to work with:

1. Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.

2. Created or arranged in a way that seems artificial or unrealistic.

the first definition we can already say does not apply to stories because stories are inherently constructed. Nothing in a story happens naturally or spontaneously. It’s all preordained by the author meaning by this definition it is inherently contrived. The second definition is a little better but again I don’t think it really applies because for one storytelling is inherently unrealistic. Again, dialogue alone proves this to be the case as any story with dialogue meant to get across a point is inherently unrealistic because real life conversation is nothing like that. On the point of it feeling artificial that’s a matter of personal taste. If not that, then verisimilitude. Verisimilitude meaning the story works in accordance to its own rules. You mentioned before that the curse of Valla is bad because it introduces a new rule out of the blue. But this can happen in any story and has happened in other well regarded works. Like I said retconing isn’t inherently bad. It’s not a hard rule that every story needs to follow. There’s even the idea of an unreliable narrator to consider. The exposition we get from said character cannot be fully trusted. Madoka Magica for example has Kyubey who is the one that dispenses all the exposition on how magical girls work however the point of the narrative is that almost everything Kyubey says is wrong. He is shown to outright lie and manipulate these girls to do what he wants. He can’t be fully trusted as a reliable narrator. Even so the author of any given story is god. It’s their story and they can do whatever they want with it. Introducing a new rule into the narrative isn’t bad so long as it doesn’t contradict anything else. 
 

The fact is so long as the story follows its own rules without contradicting anything then I don’t see the problem. Again things in stories can be surprising. You don’t have to foreshadow everything. So long as the story’s internal logic stays consistent I don’t see the issue. Even so again just because it’s unrealistic to you that doesn’t mean it’s unrealistic to someone else. Meaning it cannot be objective by any metric because you can’t argue or prove it. You cannot be right or wrong with suspension of disbelief and that is the key difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

How does that make sense? Let’s back up a minute and really get back on the same page. What does “contrivance” mean?

well if we go by the dictionary definition we have two definitions to work with:

1. Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.

2. Created or arranged in a way that seems artificial or unrealistic.

the first definition we can already say does not apply to stories because stories are inherently constructed. Nothing in a story happens naturally or spontaneously. It’s all preordained by the author meaning by this definition it is inherently contrived. The second definition is a little better but again I don’t think it really applies because for one storytelling is inherently unrealistic. Again, dialogue alone proves this to be the case as any story with dialogue meant to get across a point is inherently unrealistic because real life conversation is nothing like that. On the point of it feeling artificial that’s a matter of personal taste. If not that, then verisimilitude. Verisimilitude meaning the story works in accordance to its own rules. You mentioned before that the curse of Valla is bad because it introduces a new rule out of the blue. But this can happen in any story and has happened in other well regarded works. Like I said retconing isn’t inherently bad. It’s not a hard rule that every story needs to follow.

Think of it like this. In a puppet show, the characters dance on the strings of the puppetmaster (the writer in this analogy). A skilled puppetmaster will keep their hands and strings out of sight and people will struggle to see their influence on the show. A clumsy puppetmaster will let those strings slip, may accidentally show their hands at times, etc. Even then some people in the audience may not notice the slip up and continue to enjoy the show as if nothing ever happened (suspension of disbelief). That said, would you say that the two puppetmasters are equal in their skill, even if the clumsier one was lucky and NOBODY in the audience noticed his blunder?

There are still metrics by which the level of contrivance in a story can be measured- as stated before, stuff like the story breaking its own rules or introducing new ones. And fine, I can agree that not all these rules are always a hard rule. But it can always be argued as to why these rules are broken in each particular case. And it's also worth pointing out that even if well-regarded stories can introduce new rules in their world, it can still be a bad kind of contrivance but not ruin the story as a whole. But that discussion over when the rules of contrivance should and shouldn't apply is a discussion in and of itself.

36 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The fact is so long as the story follows its own rules without contradicting anything then I don’t see the problem. Again things in stories can be surprising. You don’t have to foreshadow everything. So long as the story’s internal logic stays consistent I don’t see the issue. Even so again just because it’s unrealistic to you that doesn’t mean it’s unrealistic to someone else. Meaning it cannot be objective by any metric because you can’t argue or prove it. You cannot be right or wrong with suspension of disbelief and that is the key difference.

Assuming you mean "the key difference between thematic interpretations and meanings" I would argue you can't be right or wrong with those either. If you and I were to have a debate over the themes of a story, and we both disagreed with the other's interpretation, we would both be able to recognise the evidence we put forth but disagree at the conclusion we came to separately. If we were to then discuss suspension of disbelief we could both put forth evidence to explain why each of us had our SOD broken/untouched. I would say that the vallite curse is contrived and thus broke my SOD because by introducing a new rule into the story that was clearly not very well thought out and has plotholes/better alternative explanations, they betrayed the idea that the writers perhaps wanted a quick and easy fix to the fact that Corrin could just tell everyone what was going on and have them join him immediately. You on the other hand, might say that it doesn't break your SOD because the rule still makes sense in the world of the game and doesn't break any of the rules established by it- you can accept that there could be a kind of magic that makes people disappear if they utter some kind of trigger word, because people can indeed disappear in the world of Fates (was that the Azura point you made beforehand? If so, apologies it took me so long to get what you meant lol) so it's not as farfetched to you. I can accept that explanation, you (I hope at least lol) can accept my explanation. We have had discussion. And you are correct, neither of us are right or wrong- but neither of us are right or wrong in the themes discussion either.

And maybe this is just a personal thing, but I legitimately cannot see any difference in those two hypothetical discussions I brought up. Both of them involve using evidence from the text to reinforce an opinion and both can result in legitimate discussion. Neither of them can result in a true correct/incorrect opinion assuming we both argue our points well enough, and even if one of us has a flawed argument it doesn't make the other one immediately correct- it just means they were better at backing up their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 11:09 PM, Ottservia said:

You miss my point. My point in saying that suspension of disbelief is subjective is that it is impossible to use it as any kind of metric because you cannot prove suspension of disbelief. It is entirely subjective. If you assert a story is objectively bad because it broke your suspension of disbelief in some way then that argument is flawed inherently. You cannot prove your suspension of disbelief was broken. There’s no evidence to support a claim like that simply because it is wholly subjective.

Sounds like you found a solution to that subjectivity problem with how you argued Persona 5 wasn't ruined by its contrivance.

On 12/5/2020 at 7:47 PM, Ottservia said:

Would you could consider persona 5 a poorly written story for that reason? I wouldn’t and a lot of people would agree with me. Persona 5 is a fantastically written game that many people, myself included, love and hold in high regard. 

Its seems that as long as you, and an unspecified number of people agree, it is objectively so. Unless the argument you used for why contrivance isn't a valid form of criticism is a subjective opinion formed by subjective evidence...

 

21 hours ago, Ottservia said:

saying awakening is “tonally inconsistent” is a flawed statement as there is no evidence to support that claim.

The commenter provided evidence of that claim, the Kellam supports, you simply have questioned the validity of that evidence. Also the way you questioned its validity seems to asserted that the developers were too incompetent to control where each support would occur for the player, and due to this incompetence they should be ignored as they defy authorial intent (its almost as if authorial intent has some flaws when used to interpret video games...). If I were to argue with authorial intent in mind, then the fact that the developer allows for these tonal inconsistencies to occur thanks to supports must be intentional, and thus it is tonally inconsistent by the author's intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:
21 hours ago, Ottservia said:

 

The commenter provided evidence of that claim, the Kellam supports, you simply have questioned the validity of that evidence. Also the way you questioned its validity seems to asserted that the developers were too incompetent to control where each support would occur for the player, and due to this incompetence they should be ignored as they defy authorial intent (its almost as if authorial intent has some flaws when used to interpret video games...). If I were to argue with authorial intent in mind, then the fact that the developer allows for these tonal inconsistencies to occur thanks to supports must be intentional, and thus it is tonally inconsistent by the author's intent

Here’s the problem with this argument is that the way the support system works is that sort of tonal inconsistency is unavoidable and even if we wanna fault the developers that criticism can apply to every Fire Emblem game besides 3H. It’s not a problem exclusive to awakening. Thereby the argument is flawed regardless. Because any game with a support system that don’t have time-locked supports are going to have that problem. If it’s a problem with awakening, it’s also a problem with PoR. It’s just how the support system works. It’s optional content. The developers have no control weather you access said content and when in the game you choose to do so. The game certainly rewards you for engaging with it with various benefits as the supports are integral to the themes of the story but overall it is still optional and something you aren’t forced to engage with. The argument is fundamentally flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

If it’s a problem with awakening, it’s also a problem with PoR. It’s just how the support system works.

Path of Radiance limits the amount of support points gain-able to exactly 1 per chapter deployed, and the total number per character to 5. Those intentionally imposed restrictions gave the devs far more control over when these supports could occur, and what content they could contain. The Awakening team let each character unlock as many supports as they like (that are available), and let them grind up however many support points they want between chapters, which gave the Awakening team less control over when theses supports can occur, and what contents they might have.

 

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The developers have no control weather you access said content and when in the game you choose to do so. The game certainly rewards you for engaging with it with various benefits as the supports are integral to the themes of the story but overall it is still optional and something you aren’t forced to engage with. The argument is fundamentally flawed.

The developers COULD exert more control over when, and whether you access said content, but they INTENTIONALLY didn't. This intentional decision by the developers, to have optional content that could easily create an inconsistent tone, shouldn't be ignored out of hand, unless the developers were so incompetent that they could not understand the story they were creating with this decision.

 

20 hours ago, Ottservia said:

For example SoV is thematically inconsistent. Alm is shown to be portrayed as a static change character throughout the majority of the story however then at the end he apologizes for being wrong when the story has never shown that he was.

This is based on optional content that occurs when the player plays perfectly. The developers have no control over whether you will play perfectly or not, the game rewards you for doing so, but this is still optional content you do not have to engage with. By the same logic you use above, this argument is fundamentally flawed, unless your assertion about optional content is the part of your argument that is fundamentally flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

This is based on optional content that occurs when the player plays perfectly. The developers have no control over whether you will play perfectly or not, the game rewards you for doing so, but this is still optional content you do not have to engage with. By the same logic you use above, this argument is fundamentally flawed, unless your assertion about optional content is the part of your argument that is fundamentally flawed.

Oh god this again, I’ve already explained to you the difference. If you ignore the optional content in awakening the story still works fine as is. Nothing about the themes of the story are contradicted. Just because you don’t realize the themes of the story that doesn’t mean those themes aren’t there. Not seeing or experiencing something is not the same thing as contradicting it. However ignoring the optional content in echoes by playing perfectly actively contradicts the game’s message. There is an inconsistency there. Awakening does not have that inconsistency no matter how the player chooses to engage with its systems. Even mechanically SoV encourages the player to play perfectly by giving them access to things like Mila’s turnwheel. I’ve already explained this to you. SoV is thematically inconsistent no matter how you look at it. 
 

 

9 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

The developers COULD exert more control over when, and whether you access said content, but they INTENTIONALLY didn't. This intentional decision by the developers, to have optional content that could easily create an inconsistent tone, shouldn't be ignored out of hand, unless the developers were so incompetent that they could not understand the story they were creating with this decision.

 

Okay fair enough point taken but even so personally it never bothered me but that’s just me and I just don’t think it’s that big of a problem but again that’s a matter of personal taste. Even then I don’t even think I’d call that tonal inconsistency because they’re two different self-contained scenes. I think a better example of tonal inconsistency is when one scene is confused on what tone or mood it wants to convey. See my fairy tail example above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the matter is that you can't say someone's ideas or viewpoints don't matter just because you don't agree. When it comes to discussing literary elements it doesn't matter if you think their interpretation is wrong or not, if they can back it up with evidence from the text then it's just as valid as your viewpoint and any english literature teacher would back me up on this. I could say Azura's hair is blue to represent her sorrow over not being able to fix the issues going on, you could say her hair is blue to represent her hope for a better future, someone else could say her hair is blue because the designers thought it was pretty and she's water themed. None of us would be wrong with evidence of her personality from the game and general knowledge of design and every interpretation is just as valid. The problem you keep running headlong into is calling other people's interpretations "close minded", saying you "don't think it's valid", etc. All that does is shut down any discussion because then people focus on the insult as opposed to where you view things differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

The point of the matter is that you can't say someone's ideas or viewpoints don't matter just because you don't agree. When it comes to discussing literary elements it doesn't matter if you think their interpretation is wrong or not, if they can back it up with evidence from the text then it's just as valid as your viewpoint and any english literature teacher would back me up on this. I could say Azura's hair is blue to represent her sorrow over not being able to fix the issues going on, you could say her hair is blue to represent her hope for a better future, someone else could say her hair is blue because the designers thought it was pretty and she's water themed. None of us would be wrong with evidence of her personality from the game and general knowledge of design and every interpretation is just as valid. The problem you keep running headlong into is calling other people's interpretations "close minded", saying you "don't think it's valid", etc. All that does is shut down any discussion because then people focus on the insult as opposed to where you view things differently.

I mean that’s fair but if I can prove that your argument doesn’t work then maybe you shouldn’t use that argument anymore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I mean that’s fair but if I can prove that your argument doesn’t work then maybe you shouldn’t use that argument anymore 

I think the last couple of pages pretty much proves this false since people have been picking yours apart and you aren't budging. You can't expect different from anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I think the last couple of pages pretty much proves this false since people have been picking yours apart and you aren't budging. You can't expect different from anyone else.

Well like I’m not budging because I believe my argument to be decently sound. I’ve argued my points. In regards to Eltosian, well he’s making flawed arguments and I’ve explained why. In terms of @Anathaco I acknowledge that he’s made a few good points but even then I think it’s flawed and again I’ve explained why. I may be stubborn but it’s possible to prove me wrong on things. Again I admitted to somewhat being wrong on the support inconsistency argument and again I will acknowledge Anathaco made some good points where a story being inconsistent with its own rules can be considered a legitimate criticism that is a form of contrivance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

Well like I’m not budging because I believe my argument to be decently sound. I’ve argued my points. In regards to Eltosian, well he’s making flawed arguments and I’ve explained why. In terms of @Anathaco I acknowledge that he’s made a few good points but even then I think it’s flawed and again I’ve explained why. I may be stubborn but it’s possible to prove me wrong on things. Again I admitted to somewhat being wrong on the support inconsistency argument and again I will acknowledge Anathaco made some good points where a story being inconsistent with its own rules can be considered a legitimate criticism that is a form of contrivance.

That's the point, they think the same about your arguments as you do theirs! They believe their arguments to be pretty sound while yours have flaws and it comes down to personal interpretation and the fact that, in discussing literature, there is no right or wrong. People can view the exact same information in a wide plethora of ways because the way every single person views and interacts with the world is different.

Just to give an example, take the Rainbow Sage's death. I saw it, went "Well that was stupid and pointless" and moved on. A friend playing the game was quite touched. We have different world experiences and so reacted to the same thing differently. Or a more extreme example, Edelgard's little talk to Byleth after Jeralt died. I heard her and immediately thought she was an asshole who I wanted to punch in the teeth and would have had it been an option. Meanwhile there are several people here who saw that scene as her being comforting.

So through your world lens you may see arguments as flawed but never forget that people will think the same about yours and it just comes down to that we're all different people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

That's the point, they think the same about your arguments as you do theirs! They believe their arguments to be pretty sound while yours have flaws and it comes down to personal interpretation and the fact that, in discussing literature, there is no right or wrong. People can view the exact same information in a wide plethora of ways because the way every single person views and interacts with the world is different.

Just to give an example, take the Rainbow Sage's death. I saw it, went "Well that was stupid and pointless" and moved on. A friend playing the game was quite touched. We have different world experiences and so reacted to the same thing differently. Or a more extreme example, Edelgard's little talk to Byleth after Jeralt died. I heard her and immediately thought she was an asshole who I wanted to punch in the teeth and would have had it been an option. Meanwhile there are several people here who saw that scene as her being comforting.

So through your world lens you may see arguments as flawed but never forget that people will think the same about yours and it just comes down to that we're all different people.

That’s just subjectivist which is a somewhat flawed way to look at art. Cause you can wrong about art. Again I’m just gonna bring up the Edelgard is racist example. Edelgard isn’t racist there is evidence to directly support that she isn’t. To say that she is objectively wrong. And even with your example of Jeralt it’s wrong to say that she’s being an asshole cause she’s not. If we really break down what’s she’s saying, essentially what she says is basically “sitting around moping and wallowing in pity isn’t gonna change anything. You just have to accept what happened and do something about it cause action is better than inaction”. Is she harsh about it? Perhaps. Is she being an asshole and outright malicious? Definitely not she’s simply giving her own advice in the way she knows how and how she chooses to understand the world. I wouldn’t call that being an asshole because she’s helping Byleth get out of their funk. It’s just a trope where the depressed character is snapped out of it by being harshly yelled at. She’s blunt but that’s just how her character is. If you simply do not like her method of giving advice well that’s personal taste. She’s not being an asshole though. That is simply not true

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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...