AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Ok, I don't want this conversation to go down a path of trying to one up each other, which is clearly what I've invited and what you are doing right now. So I'll just say: I'm not sure if you're being intellectually dishonest here, or if there's a failure of communication from both sides that is at fault. So I'll take back my implication of dishonesty from earlier.
When you talked about story, it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were talking about the plot of the game. Now, story and plot are two different things: One is a lot more general, the other is centered around the main events of a story. Before you say it's not fair of me to criticize your posts as feeling similar to "entrapment" or being false equivalencies because of an interpretation on my part, let me remind you that your own post that I'm replying to admits to having done so. That's not to say that you should feel bad about that, just that we're clear it's perfectly acceptable when talking about each others writings to bring up interpretation, because a specific interpretation could be at fault of the person writing, not just the interpreter.
The reason it seemed pretty obvious that you were talking about plot is the limitations you kept putting on the game. In fact, no, you basically admit to talking about plot with how you describe potential criticisms of the story.
"Did you expect a crossover between Rabbids, who communicate only in screams, and Mario characters to have a rich and nuanced story? If so, I think the problems lied with your expectations"
"As for the story, I'm really not sure what you could have expected in a crossover between a group of characters that only scream, and a group that is mostly mute. "
The way you are narrowing down elements of the "story" is the same way you'd narrow down criticisms of the games plot. You even separate in this very reply my first comment ("few good humorous moments but it felt so 'artificial'") from my second one ("Bland writing") on the basis of:
"The first and third bolded sections I took to be references to the story, which I feel was pretty reasonable. Either way, referencing the "bland writing" clearly speaks to the story."
You see how you separate the difference between comedy criticisms and "bland writing" because you think the first could potentially have to do with the story but you know the second one does have to do with the story? That's the exact issue, you "know" the second one has to be about the story, because to you it seems like a plot-centric criticism. When technically ... every skit, joke, bit, it's all part of the story. You are conflating story with plot and assuming my "bland writing" comment has to do with criticisms of the plot. It doesn't. It's about the humor and skits and character side-interactions of the game. I don't care that much about the plot or the major events, most Mario games have bog standard plots anyways. Yes, I did entertain your point and say that I guess the plot could have been better, but that's the point of entertaining a criticism: Testing whether or not you agree with something, even if it's not really what you're talking about to begin with. It's not really something that affected the game's enjoyment too much for me, but I guess I could agree it's a flaw, even if that's not what I was referring to in my original comments at all. And that's what we're arguing about: my original comments.
The only technicality you have to win on is that you kept saying "story", in which case the literal definition of a story would encompass those things, but again, how you characterized possible criticisms of the story literally fit the definition of plot criticisms (and I know those two words are often used as synonyms, but generally story is much more broad, and I am using the more literal definitions). Because even though you didn't say "main events", you were very specific to separate stuff like side-gags and comedy from the "bland writing" criticism, and even kept defending the Rabbids on a basis of how limited they are from the perspective of potential story capabilities. You are at the very least using a definition of "story" that I'm not ascribing to, nor am I criticizing the game based off that definition. Unless you are implying that character interactions and comedy can only have a certain level of quality with the kind of archetype the Rabbids and Mario's crew are? In which case that's hard to defend: That is either saying there's a kind of limitation of writing quality that doesn't really exist for these character archetypes (tons of great comedy and character interactions in things as silly as the Rabbids), or admitting that the fundamental nature of the Rabbids handicaps how good the comedy can be. Either way, it's a loss. At the very least, you should realize that story is all-encompassing enough that criticisms of side-gags, comedy, and random character interactions can fit in the definition of "story" without being criticisms of the story not being nuanced enough, or having archetypes that prohibit potential plot nuance. In the end, you either conflated plot and story, or are using a definition you didn't elaborate on that isn't the standard definition, or aren't expressing yourself very well, in any case I'd say that's a flaw in your writing, no?
So just to be clear before moving on: No, my comments about the "writing" and "story" up to this point do not refer to the extremely confined definition of story you are using for this discussion.
And come on man, I think even you can admit it's not fair to say I "ignored the rest of your comment" when I literally said that I'd be fine giving a detailed response to the rest of it and why I don't like the game very much. That's the exact opposite of ignoring it. I gave you an opportunity to say you wanted to hear me out. I didn't just write a wall of text because I know how those conversations tend to go down: Either the other person becomes disinterested once you elaborate, or they focus on one specific sentence and try to misconstrue it into some indefensible fallacy. And you kind of already proved that point by admitting disinterest in the topic, though you could blame me for it I suppose.
It's especially funny because you actually didn't address my point about the incredibly lackluster roster, which was you ignoring it. Don't get me wrong, I understand that conversations can flow naturally and sometimes it doesn't make sense to reply to every point a person makes. But that's exactly it: you technically ignored me, whereas I opened up the possibility of me explaining in excruciating detail every reason I don't agree with your post or why I just don't like the game in general.
I also think it's a little silly to count your sentences and try to say "look, I'm not only focusing on this, why are you accusing me of this o_O w_w". Look at what I wrote: "I feel like you're doing a bad job of trying to move my position to one I never claimed nor wish to defend." I didn't say you moved the entire discussion to this type of discourse, I said that part of your replies came off as if it was trying to move a position I have on a specific part of the topic in one direction. That's not me saying that's all you're making the discussion about. Indeed, if that was what I was saying, how could I also say in that very reply that I'd love to delve deeper into the other parts of the game to explain my criticisms? Why would I do that if we were only talking about one specific topic? I was acknowledging your other points, when I said that. I'm also not sure why you're saying talking about other points disqualifies purposeful distortion of intent. I mean, first of all, your initial reply lead with discussion of story, so I'm not sure that's a good argument. Secondly, being on this site and seeing many arguments, I actually think talking about many finer points at once in a very general topic is a pretty great way to make someone lose their own point or say something they didn't mean to say or to attribute something to said person without backlash from them. It can make them argue over small semantics (like we're doing now) for a long period of time before they realize they didn't even agree with the initial premise being attributed to them to begin with. It's a pretty easy way to miss the forest for the trees actually, and isn't too uncommon in real life debates.
Regardless, I am genuinely sorry if I have been uncharitable towards you. It wasn't entirely fair to say that, just because your initial reply sounded very leading meant it was so or that it was on purpose. I'm just generally very cynical when you criticize an RPG for being bland and get met with the classic "What were you expecting it to be, Final Fantasy?" type of line. It's tired, it's annoying, frankly starting by assuming someone's position is usually an irritating way to start a discussion, even if you didn't mean it to be, and it didn't come off as an entirely genuine query, especially with the hyperbole about possible criticisms. I don't even like most plot-centric RPGs that much (love the concepts of them but with more attention to story comes more nitpicks), so anyone who knows me wouldn't make that assumption.
|
