> 2533274806427910;14533:
> Just because opinions aren’t factually based, doesn’t mean that they still can’t possibly be wrong, or at least asinine and stupid. Saying, “I believe the Moon is made from cheese, because it has holes in it” is moronic, and it’s a well-known, well-researched fact that it’s not. Opinions shouldn’t be used to shield someone from debating about something.
You still don’t understand. Opinions can be wrong, but only when they concern an objective question. “Moon is made from cheese” is wrong because it contradicts a commonly agreed upon definitions of cheese and the moon, and our knowledge of the geology of the moon.
However, when someone says, for example, “sprint belongs in Halo because it makes me feel like a Spartan”, they are not wrong. They are making a statement which is neither right or wrong, because it doesn’t make any assertions that are falsifiable based on some commonly agreed upon definitions. The same goes for your statement “[sprint] doesn’t belong in a game with slow kill-times”, which you asserted as “fact”, despite there being nothing factual about this statement. This statement is neither right or wrong. It is entirely subjective, and not factual.
> 2533274806427910;14533:
> No, my gameplay “nonsense” doesn’t hold more water than the lore drivel people use to justify mechanics which clearly don’t belong in Halo, just because someone agrees with me. No offense, but you, of all people, should know how ridiculous that assessment is. It’s their own problem if they don’t find my “nonsense” convincing; if they realized what Spartans were capable of outside the games, the lore argument falls apart immediately. To add more salt to the wound, it’s incredibly easy to turn their lore BS against themselves.
You should try to understand the importance of the framework in which an argument is being judged. When someone asserts “a super soldier should be able to sprint”, you can pick any number of responses:
- “Yes, sounds entirely reasonable.” - “They’re super soldiers, so they should be able to maintain accuracy at maximum speed.” - "They’re entirely fictional creatures, so what they should be able to do is completely arbitrary."Believe it or not, all these responses are entirely reasonable, and justifiable, in their own framework. Response (1.) is the response from a person who has decided to work in the same framework as the person who made the original assertion. Because the fiction is entirely arbitrary, one can simply declare that Spartans should have some limitations of humans, among which is the inability to maintain perfect aim at maximum speed. This is the framework of response (1.). Response (2.) simply declares a framework for the fictional universe where Spartans are not bound by these limitations. Response (3.) is indifferent to how the rules of the fictional universe should work.
None of these stances is inferior to any of the others in objective sense. All they are are reflections of what the person in question cares about. Everyone chooses between them based on what sounds the most appealing to them, but there exists no unique, objective criterion to choose between these options.
> 2533274806427910;14533:
> Removing Sprint for gameplay reasons objectively holds more water than keeping Sprint in the game because of “immersion”, “lore”, and “super-soldier” - those are subjective arguments which are completely invalid. When Bungie made Halos 1-3, they weren’t concern with this nonsense because gameplay was obviously more important than bright colors and “feeling like a Spartan”.
The gameplay reasons are subjective arguments, too. For example, “gameplay should maximise the skill gap” is a subjective statement. A person who makes such a statement thinks in the framework that the game is a challenge to be mastered, and the more there is to master, the better. However, just as little as you might care about how Spartans should represent human capabilities, someone might care about how much of a challenge the game should be. In their framework, this statement might be irrelevant, and therefore ultimately unconvincing. Certainly, it’s no more objective than any of the others, again, because not everyone considers skill an important aspect of the game.
