Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Ruby of the Blue
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
That's not evidence.
This statement only proves that you are not willing to listen to, or even comprehend anything an opposing arguer is presenting. Way to go.
Fix your logic and comprehension skills for next time.
All you present is "I bet it's the Halo 4's enemy!" without any back up evidence to support your claim.
How many times do I have to reiterate what I am saying before you actually respond to it?
Because so far, you've been derping on about how my reasoning is "not evidence" without actually saying anything about one word in my post.
It's like arguing with a twelve year old.
I am going to continue pasting what I said until we're able to come up with a logical, valid debate.
Something you just can't seem to understand about my reasoning is that I look at the factors that rule over what happens in stories and games: development, decisions, consistency, and fan-satisfaction.
In this case, referring to the story of Glasslands itself is completely unnecessary if something outside of the story (development, decisions, etc.) is right there for use of inference.
i.e., Glassland tying in with Halo 4, the definition of a "suspenseful and dramatic cliffhanger", and the trend of narratives.
It's not really that difficult to understand.
And to your "example" you gave, that is "different" from the situation at hand, so it doesn't work as an analogy, but that is kind of hard to explain.
Considering the fact that we were given the information in direct words, Glasslands will connect to Halo 4.
Now, couple that with the need for a narrative (Glasslands) to have suspenseful and dramatic happenings. (aka, the trend of narratives in our culture)
Anything predictable would fade the whole point of a cliffhanger, so it can't be the Brutes or much of anything else we know of.
What does that leave as a possibility then? a tie-in to Halo 4 through the attackers being the new threat.
There you go.
[Edited on 11.10.2011 7:41 PM PST]