- tinyohyeah
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
Cave Johnson here, we're done!
PS: If you are reading this comment while imagining my voice, don't panic. That's just a side effect of the testing.
Posted by: Ruby of the Blue
How many times do I have to reiterate what I am saying before you actually respond to it?
How many times does this forum have to tell you to stop making ridiculous assumptions? Why do you insist on "predicting" the things that will occur in Halo 4?
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.
If he hasn't then I will.
Your arguement is flawed. Yes, it will be somewhat mundane if it's just the brutes, and yes this series is supposed to tie in with Halo 4 (or at least set the stage to how the halo universe is at the moment). But the thing is that the books are a series, meaning more than one novel.
So when do you think this Cliffhanger will resolve itself? By the next book? Do you think that the reveal of the new halo enemy before the release of the next game is a good idea? Do you think it makes sense for 343 to reveal the new enemy before the game even comes out. Why ruin the surprise and spoil it months in advance?
It's nonsensical for them to do this. Especially considering the fact that by the next book they would have to address this new enemy, give details of who they are, and effectively spoil the cliffhanger set up by bungie at the end of Halo 3. You say "Anything predictable would fade the whole point of a cliffhanger," So what sense does it make for 343 to spoil it? Why make the new halo game trilogy predictable? Why take the mystery that is the new enemy, and reveal who they are now and make the new halo game predictable?
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.
Something that you don't seem to understand is that most already do this. Most people inherently try to connect the dots and weighs things from one to another. Except most people come to the conclusion that with assumptions comes faults and weaknesses with our logic. And with that they have to provide some factual data to even prove that their idea is logical. Yet you continue on to develop these ideas without recognizing this. You continue to spout your information as factual and logical, all the wise being riddled with holes and faults.
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.
Why do you ignore Glasslands? You say "I look at the factors that rule over what happens in stories and games: development, decisions, consistency, and fan-satisfaction.", but you ignore the fact that your arguement is based off of one of these stories. You say the factors rule over the story but you have no idea what the perspective of the book is. You could be completely wrong and you wouldn't even know it. Your arguments can not rule over the story when the matter of fact is that your arguments base is from the story itself. You ignore the story all the wise using as your argument. You are contradicting yourself.
Not all cliffhangers have a dramatic reveal, not all roads lead to Rome.
Just as a sidenote, you say that having a predictable reveal to a cliffhanger would be pointless, yet with these points that you have made you present a prediction for the outcome of this reveal. So given the fact that your idea is "not really that difficult to understand.", wouldn't that make your idea a predictable outcome for this cliffhanger? And by your logic "Anything predictable would fade the whole point of a cliffhanger," making the points you make effectively useless given that the idea for the "New Enemy" is a predictable outcome.