Yes, its fiction, the argument that is raging right now is if this fiction is bad because of the loopholes. Its going to have them, I am simply arguing that while bad enough ones can break immersion in a story for the most part the writing is what draws in the reader regardless of the loopholes, causing the reader to fill in the 'if this is true' blanks mentally by disregarding them or making assumptions. That is every science fiction story, and indeed most fiction stories. These 'catchalls' are simply a way of saying a copout excuse for why something works the way it does but in every work of fiction things work diffrenlty in real life and we can simply think of things as having bigger or smaller catchalls and more or less believable ones. That is why I am saying that it is not BAD writing to, for example, have an animal that blocks the force but nobody knows why. Maybe they don't know why. Maybe nobody has had a chance to get ahold of one long enough to dissect it or perhaps they have found nothing to warrant why, but it does. Now is it bad writing because "oh now we can't use the force" or perhaps is it better to assume that the reason is not given because they don't know or its not important to the story and they move on which is honeslty what people say MGS should do.
Thats actually a really good way to make my point. people are complaining about copout answers on the one hand, and then to the best of my knowledge answers that are over explained on the other. Its kind of a Goldielocks scenario and that is far more personal than anything else. Now if people have actual 'catchalls' within the MGS story such as the use of nano for all sorts of diffrent things, well then its all a matter of weather the person is willing to accept that maybe they play a major part or if they just want to think its a BS answer. I'm not saying writing can't be objective on some levels, in fact it has to. However Bad writing would be like Master chief who, at least in the games, shows little emotional depth and has a massive amount of obvious plot device on his side with nothing to distract from that fact.The fact that an in-game or in-story universe works on diffrent principals from our own is part of why it is fiction. I really just think its a matter of a persons tolerance for light or heavy fluff being translated into how good they consider the overall writing.
and no, your not setting up your points well, your blathering on in cricles.
And no, you don't have to LIKE the writing. You can hate writing and still accept that its not bad. Your not making a case for why the MGS series has bad writing, nobody has. All they have done is complained that it gives them what they feel is too much information which is not in itself bad writing, and on top of that all you have done is talk about catchalls, talked about problems with your inability to 'buy' the setting which you could simply accept is more personal than anything. You don't like it, thats fine, but you have made no case for why it is outright bad.
Thats actually a really good way to make my point. people are complaining about copout answers on the one hand, and then to the best of my knowledge answers that are over explained on the other. Its kind of a Goldielocks scenario and that is far more personal than anything else. Now if people have actual 'catchalls' within the MGS story such as the use of nano for all sorts of diffrent things, well then its all a matter of weather the person is willing to accept that maybe they play a major part or if they just want to think its a BS answer. I'm not saying writing can't be objective on some levels, in fact it has to. However Bad writing would be like Master chief who, at least in the games, shows little emotional depth and has a massive amount of obvious plot device on his side with nothing to distract from that fact.The fact that an in-game or in-story universe works on diffrent principals from our own is part of why it is fiction. I really just think its a matter of a persons tolerance for light or heavy fluff being translated into how good they consider the overall writing.
and no, your not setting up your points well, your blathering on in cricles.
And no, you don't have to LIKE the writing. You can hate writing and still accept that its not bad. Your not making a case for why the MGS series has bad writing, nobody has. All they have done is complained that it gives them what they feel is too much information which is not in itself bad writing, and on top of that all you have done is talk about catchalls, talked about problems with your inability to 'buy' the setting which you could simply accept is more personal than anything. You don't like it, thats fine, but you have made no case for why it is outright bad.
