Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10197675-20130806142227/@comment-14011542-20140420024853

Smoking.Chimp wrote: @69.246.226.115

Just in case you didn't get my opening statement the first time, I quote myself to reiterate what I am saying:

"I tend to think that it's the developers' story and, what makes it interesting is that it does not unfold as I would tell it, but takes a path of its own which I don't anticipate. The high degree of flexibility in the game-lore (via the device of superstitious writings, academic suppositions, and outright mysteries) does much to preserve the surprises yielded up by next chapter."(2014-04-03T15:31:17)

As to your points...

1. Adamant (aka Adamantium in American dialect) pre-dates Marvel Comics  and is English derived from Latin. As such, it is [part of] a word paradigm which is thousands of years old and it has nothing to do with Mithril. Mithril, on the other hand, makes its very first appearance in the work of Tolkien, just last century. Don't take the example of all too many modern academics. Use a dictionary if you are not certain of the actual denotation of a term (as opposed to the colloqial uses and connotations). Adamant is a diamond-like material and Mithril is a silver-like material - please explain how diamond-like and silver-like are "equatable"...?

2. [In point of fact, it was not a "comment" (2014-04-18T13:34:30), it was a question and you misquoted me - my actual questions were "- have you ever played TES? If so, which ones?" (2014-04-04T10:13:05) not "have you ever even played TES" (2014-04-18T13:34:30).] I would also point out that here is no such thing as an "inflammatory" question - because a question is not a statement. Thus, therefore and ergo, a question is, by its very nature, open and unconcluded and cannot possibly assert anything, much less anything inflammatory. Straw-man arguments, on the other hand, really are inflammatory because they are essentially dishonest and very personal. I never said that “ they couldn't bring them back because it would "change the genre" ” (2014-04-03T18:02:36). I said, “this is, possibly, one of the things which would make bringing the Dwemer back difficult to execute effectively” (2014-04-03T15:31:17). For your information: Difficult is not even remotely synonymous with impossible  (with respect to the use of “couldn't” above-quoted).

I never said that "Dwemer constructs don't belong in lore" (2014-04-18T13:34:30). And, in point of fact, you really did say "Oblivion was full of yet more Dwemer ruins with constructs and apparent technology." (2014-04-03T18:02:36) - which is simply untrue. Oblivion stands out, egregiously, as the one TES game which most noticeably lacks any Dwemer ruins; hence the question. After all, only someone who'd never played through the series would have failed to notice this. It's not inflammatory to ask such questions in the light of factually incorrect statements concerning things which simply cannot be missed. It's a genuine question. I want to understand how you came to conclude that: "Oblivion was full of yet more Dwemer ruins with constructs and apparent technology." How? Did I miss a key DLC or Mod? Did you not play enough Oblivion to notice that the ruins were Ayleid and not Dwemer?

3. The legends of Nords and their shouts are in the books which are part of the game - maybe these don't go all the way back to Arena but the shouts were certainly not an unexpected part of TES V: Skyrim – and I certainly do not need to produce screenshots of every game and write follow-up essays to make this point. You'd know about it if, for example, you'd played Oblivion seriously enough to be even vaguely familiar with the in-game literature.

4. See point #2. Did you actually read my post? I didn't say "Dragons have always existed". I said "Dragons, on the other hand, have always been an implicit part of the TES because of the period-mythos and genre." Being an implicit part of genre/period mythos and existing are two totally different things. I think that the reason you are having so much trouble answering my arguments (as opposed to what you may imagine that I have argued) is because you lack an understanding of the semantics. For example, I never said any of the following:

You address these things as if I had said them when, clearly, I did not - which is highly inflammatory, by the way. Either these straw man arguments of yours constitute an act of calculated dishonesty (and an act of open hostility - i.e. "deception is the basis of all warfare", Sun Tzu, Art of War, 1:18) or are evidence of semantic failure due to inadequate literacy – take your pick, but please do explain.
 * 'they couldn't bring them back because it would "change the genre"' (2014-04-03T18:02:36)
 * "Dwemer constructs don't belong in lore" (2014-04-18T13:34:30)
 * "Dragons have always existed" (2014-04-18T13:34:30)

In point of fact, semantics are the meaning of the argument - go look it up in the dictionary (while you're at it, compare and contrast the dictionary definitions for the words “impossible” and “difficult”). Without semantics there can be no argument, no language, and no communication; period, full stop, bring out the prima-donna and fiddle till she sings! For example, without knowing what the words mean, address the argument, "Echavonz depachia ka esk li tapay!" Without a semantic understanding of the argument, the task is quite impossible without fabricating a straw-man argument of your own devising. So next time someone belittles an argument with "It's only semantics", well, it's pretty obvious what's going on so don't be afraid to call it what it is...

As to dragons, you said and I quote; "Beth was likely leaving Dragons out due to limitations and constraints" (2014-04-03T18:02:36) - presumably to the engine, right? Wrong. Dragons first appeared in TES via the efforts of the modding community as early as Oblivion (TES IV). The issue certainly wasn't gameplay or limitations of the game engine as the various Oblivion mods which introduced dragons or dragon-like creatures (E.g. Underdark OMOD) clearly demonstrate. The only other possible issue was plot viability; i.e game lore.

5. In point of fact, the only essential difference between Role Playing Games (RPGs), film and novels is in the medium of delivery. It doesn't matter how good your language skills are, if you can't cook up a compelling plot then the only way your novel can succeed is to cheat by having your literary trash inflicted on school children (who lack the legal capacity to 'just say no' to this abuse). Ditto for special effects in film - only the poor suffering students who get drowned in failed plots are a little older in this case (and yes, there are hundreds of F-grade movies with special effects comparable with Star Wars). I do not know of an equivalent cheat for failed video game plots so, if your game lacks a plot, I think it's doomed in the face of more imaginative competition and Blakestone is one of the best examples. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that anything has changed, since 1994, which could alter the outcome of a fiction product handicapped by an atrocious plot. Anyone who can bankroll the development of a video game can have good game mechanics because game engines are a dime-a-dozen as far as capital investment goes. But, not anyone can come up with a good plot - as the lesson of video games such as Blakestone so clearly demonstrates.

At the end of the day, it's fiction, regardless of the medium - and the reason why time travel and dragonbreaks work is because they are viable elements of fiction with long standing success. Dr Who is all about time travel and even Star Trek plays with the idea at some point in every series. Whether you or I have a problem with time travel, it is meaningful to enough people to be a viable element in works of fiction - whether they be novels, movies or role-playing games. So your claim that “It has not stayed even relatively faithful to itself.” is baseless, empty and without foundation whatsoever. Please give us a valid and undeniable example of aporia in the TES series. You also claim that “Even LotR has inconsistencies between the Hobbit and the trilogy.” (2014-04-18T13:34:30) Which trilogy, pray tell, Jackson's or Tolkien's? And please back this rather adventurous claim up with some quotations from the various texts to show where there is, in your opinion, some form of aporia.

Finally, it is you, @69.246.226.115, who is being inflammatory. You are the one saying things like:

“Please be very mad about everything I write as you people make me laugh more than Star Wars fanon arguments.” (2014-04-02T01:23:57 ) - This text expresses utter contempt for everyone else on this thread and, as such, is inflammatory.

"Quit acting like this game is anything more than a product lol" (2014-04-03T18:02:36) - That's not you're call to make and "laughing out loud" at people because of the importance they attach to something they like is both manipulative and insulting. Who do you think you are, to judge the tastes and opinions of others, @69.246.226.115?

"It's very sweet the way you folks try to romanticize game development but" (2014-04-18T13:34:30) - That's talking down to people. Once again, who do you think you are, @69.246.226.115?

[EDIT: assorted streamlining, incorrect expression, formatting errors and typos]

Smokingchimp for staff!