Plot is an element of the story. It is part of it. If you are criticizing the plot it is 100% accurate to say you are criticizing the story, even if saying you are criticizing the plot would be slightly more accurate.
Either way, in your original post you did not use the word "plot" or "story". My interpretation was that you were including things like the setting and the conflict, so, even though I wasn't consciously thinking about it, story was the appropriate word as it includes setting, conflict, and plot. In your second post, you specifically spoke about the story, so in my response I addressed your comment about the story. Whether or not your first post meant to include story is kind of irrelevant at that point. At that point you completely unambiguously mentioned story, so I commented on story at that point. At no point until this post did you use the word plot, and honestly I still do not see why the distinction is relevant. I don't think your post demonstrates that, and I'm not going to go through the weeds to explain why, because I really don't care.
Considering that, it's kind of weird to suggest that using story to mean plot (as you point out they are often used as synonyms, and plot is an element of story) is an intentional attempt to strawman you. Since you have apologized, I accept, and we can move on.
Just to clarify: My entire point in my reply was I'm not criticizing the plot/the confines of what you count as "story" elements... that was why I quoted you and showed the parts that you considered criticizing the story, and the parts that you didn't consider criticizing the story/were iffy on including as a comparison, and by your own metrics the stuff I am criticizing belongs in the latter not the former.
I'm also not sure why you can't just accept what it means to entertain a point. Yes, when you asked for my opinion, I did say I guess the plot could be more interesting. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the totality of my comments, because that's not why I find the game bland nor is it the reason I gave, which is what we're talking about. Like I said, I couldn't really care if the plot was more interesting or not, even if when asked for specificity I guess it's not the most entertaining plot. But that's not the problem, especially given it's a Mario game. By trying to hammer this as a reason for why I am wrong, you are ironically making it about the plot, which is the point: that was never my intention.
But sure, we can move on. It's probably better to end it, we'd just be spiraling down minutia forever otherwise.
O_O... Seriously, wtf... I assumed your post was to clarify you weren't criticizing the story. Because otherwise your post is batshit crazy.
But... the point of your last post was to clarify that you weren't criticizing the plot..? So that means you were criticizing the story? I mean, you had to be criticizing one or the other, or writing a mini essay about the difference between story and plot would have been crazy. And if you were actually criticizing the story which is what I had been saying the entire time then you are saying I was misrepresenting you by using the word that you meant.
@_@ @_@ @_@
Like... honestly, I feel like I must be understanding this wrong, because otherwise this is absolutely insane.
Did you intend to criticize the plot or the story? Did I say you were criticizing the plot or the story?
If the answer to both those questions is "story", then this is officially the most bizarre conversation I've ever had.
Thanks for the input. Specifically, what position did I claim he held that he did not express? Quote me directly please. If you can't then please do not accuse me of dishonesty. ^_^
"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."
Mostly boils down to this sentence. He did say that the story was boring and the plot/story was almost non-existant(or something to that effect), which IS a valid criticism. I mean, Paper Mario and Mario and Luigi RPGs have silent protagonists and they manage to have a much better story than this. Then you wrote that phrase, which really dosent have anything to do with what he said( again, you can expect a decent story out of a mario game) and that's where things gone downhill.
And you dont have to be defensive about it. I liked the game too. You just made an assumption, or in the best case, made a extreme claim that Alchemist was "dumb"( thats the sentiment I got from that sentence) for expecting more out of the story, because it had silent characters and the rabbids, something he never said, because again, its normal to expect a decent story out of a franchise that has a history of its spin offs having good plots, or at least decent ones.
I mean, the sequel is seemingly going with an original villain, which is a sign that the story will play a larger role. They even explicity said that the Sparks origin was a mystery and a central part of the story. So yeah, just because you have Rabbids and characters that dont talk dont mean you cant have a more elaborate plot.
In the end, I just think it was a misunderstanding between both of you. So no one is calling you of being dishonest(at least I am not), just that this whole discussion is more of a misunderstanding than anything else.
I asked "Did you..." If I asked, "did you order a pizza? If you did, I'd like a slice", then I am not saying someone actually did order a pizza. I clearly believe the person may have ordered a pizza, but I'm not sure, and I'm asking to confirm. That's sort of what you do if you're unsure of someone's position or pizza ordering history.
So, I did not assert that he holds any position that he did not, and I certainly don't see how I made an extreme claim about anyone being dumb.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 13 June 2021