https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/51210

Blah D Blah D Blah

Mechs vs Monsters!

This year, we’re hosting our second community vote. #TeamMechs vs #TeamMonsters is about to begin. Players will have the opportunity to vote for a featured armor ornament set in the Eververse, available to earn with Bright Dust or purchase with Silver. Anyone who casts a vote for either set and has played since 2/22/22 will qualify for a unique in-game emblem to celebrate participation.

So, how’s this going to work?

• March 31 – April 6: Ensure you’ve signed up for emails from Bungie!*.
  • Make sure to link your PlayStation Network, Xbox Live, Steam, Stadia, or Twitch account credentials to your Bungie.net profile.
    
  • Visit the Account Settings page.
    
  • Click on “Notifications and Email.”
    
  • Enter your preferred email address to receive Bungie communications.
• April 7 – April 13: Polls open.
  • Watch your emails for your chance to vote.
• April 13: Polls close.
  
• April 19: The Broken Barriers emblem is distributed to all players who voted.
  
• TBD: Winners announced.

old monster for reference;

NEW UPDATED MONSTER

NEW CHALLENGER - MECHS

I’d prefer an Eva over a Gundam, but I’ll take what I can get.

None of the monster sets have ever looked good, let’s not do it again.

That being said, why the -blam!- would I ever not vote for goddamn Jaspion???

old monster for reference;

NEW UPDATED MONSTER

NEW CHALLENGER - MECHS

(Code Geass)

I know I know, Mechs are super cool, and you're preaching to the choir, but I think Mechs need a little more time in the oven. They got the basic shapes down, but there's no FUN in the design.

Where are the greebles to imply some sort of bad ass super weapon? When I pop my super, does the ARMOR respond in kind? If Money and or Bight dust is going to be exchanged for this, they better deliver! Y'all making the same mistakes Bungie made with Witch Queen (;D) if you vote for this as shown. If It's going to be a MECH, I WANT Bungie to OWN that theme (best they can), and SCREAM SHOW TIME while I'm going it!

Now I know, I know, Bungie is clearly going for more of a Mech Atheistic found in, say Neon Genesis Evangelion or Gundam vibe. Probably Gundam. But even then!

Look at this! Vents, Markings, AND MORPHS! If they CAN pull off some subtle and TRIGGERABLE type motion like they do with Athys's Embrace, why not this? Maybe NOT to the EXTREME! Duh! But... SOMETHING! If you're going to do MECH, DO MECH! They could really of had some FUN with this, and I'm not yet seeing it! At least make some proper greebles! Yeah, I see subtle ideas of them, but it's UNDER COOKED!

(Eureka Seven)

MECHS NEED MORE TIME IN THE OVEN!

VOTE MONSTER! rawr.

Considering how much better Monsters have gotten since last time they were presented, it is very compelling to let Mechs get more love

- No text -

- No text -

I don't want to be an ogre and I won't vote to become one.

Hunters look kinda cool, though.

- No text -

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

- No text -

- No text -

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

Gee, if only they had trusted the audience…

- No text -

- No text -

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

The line also serves another purpose, you know? It may still be just as clunky, but it also signifies that the Chief is actually now reflecting on that statement.

I knew you'd come through for me, Cody. I remembered your edit.

Here's my original critique.

Nah. From bad to worse

Cheesy < underestimating the audience > misunderstanding and then repeatedly misusing a common English idiom as a tagline

We're kicking some skeletal horses here, and I'm partially to blame, along with Morpheus.

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

The line also serves another purpose, you know? It may still be just as clunky, but it also signifies that the Chief is actually now reflecting on that statement.

Wouldn't we assume the latter regardless? If we remember that Cortana said that to him, then the Chief does. The problem is the 343 writers didn't trust us to recognize a callback when we heard one. That's how it felt to me. Looking back at the old thread, ibeechu made the point I think you're making, which is that the Chief has never been that reflective, and the line makes it clear that now he is. I thought we got the same through body language, but it's a fair point.

Nah. From bad to worse

Agree to disagree. :-) Were it so easy at least sounds cool in the delivery of the actors and I agree with Battuta. It always made sense to me and I like ambiguity.

Cheesy < underestimating the audience > misunderstanding and then repeatedly misusing a common English idiom as a tagline

We're kicking some skeletal horses here, and I'm partially to blame, along with Morpheus.

But... that's what we do here.

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

Gee, if only they had trusted the audience…

I GM a game of D&D and every time I'm tempted to start explaining things a bit too much, I think of this video.

Nah. From bad to worse

Agree to disagree. :-) Were it so easy at least sounds cool in the delivery of the actors ...

Yes, Keith David is hard to beat.

and I agree with Battuta. It always made sense to me

Gotta admit that Battuta disagreeing with me put me on the backfoot and makes me question my credentials. Schooly at least identified that the first use isn't as bad as the second, but I stand by my judgment. You say "were it so easy" when someone makes a difficult task sound easy. Neither Johnson nor Hood did.

and I like ambiguity.

We agree at on that, brother.

I never want to know what Bill Murray whispered in Scarlet Johanson's ear.

Gotta admit that Battuta disagreeing with me put me on the backfoot and makes me question my credentials. Schooly at least identified that the first use isn't as bad as the second, but I stand by my judgment. You say "were it so easy" when someone makes a difficult task sound easy. Neither Johnson nor Hood did.

I've actually heard it used as an equivalent of 'easier said than done' - as in 'were it so easy to do as to say'. Not saying that you have to accept that this is a valid use of the phrase, but just wanted to put out there that it's definitely been used that way.

Gotta admit that Battuta disagreeing with me put me on the backfoot and makes me question my credentials. Schooly at least identified that the first use isn't as bad as the second, but I stand by my judgment. You say "were it so easy" when someone makes a difficult task sound easy. Neither Johnson nor Hood did.

I've actually heard it used as an equivalent of 'easier said than done' - as in 'were it so easy to do as to say'. Not saying that you have to accept that this is a valid use of the phrase, but just wanted to put out there that it's definitely been used that way.

I see little difference, but hey, I'm just an editor and we can be REALLY annoying. :-)

Gotta admit that Battuta disagreeing with me put me on the backfoot and makes me question my credentials. Schooly at least identified that the first use isn't as bad as the second, but I stand by my judgment. You say "were it so easy" when someone makes a difficult task sound easy. Neither Johnson nor Hood did.

I've actually heard it used as an equivalent of 'easier said than done' - as in 'were it so easy to do as to say'. Not saying that you have to accept that this is a valid use of the phrase, but just wanted to put out there that it's definitely been used that way.

This is always how I interpreted it.

See, and here I thought they knew their audience well. They are making a game for Halo fans, after all.

- No text -

The question remains for me, in both instances, what is "it"?

In English composition class, we'd call this an example of an unclear referent.

The problem isn't with the line, but with what precedes the line. The line isn't set up properly either time.

If you tell me what "it" refers to, I'll write a better line to precede it.

- No text -

If you tell me what "it" refers to, I'll write a better line to precede it.

I always thought "it" was "killing the Chief" (well I never really thought about it until now, but I don't remember being confused before). In the first use, the Arbiter is seemingly lamenting his inability to accomplish that goal in the previous game, in the second use, he's speaking from experience that Hood shouldn't be so sure the Chief is dead. But hey, one of my favorite ways to make a joke is to purposely misuse idioms, so you don't have to take my word for it.

The question remains for me, in both instances, what is "it"?

In English composition class, we'd call this an example of an unclear referent.

The problem isn't with the line, but with what precedes the line. The line isn't set up properly either time.

If you tell me what "it" refers to, I'll write a better line to precede it.

Killing the Chief.

The second use of the phrase works a little better if “it” is believing he’s dead.

I won’t argue that the setup for either line is perfect; I sort of interpret the line as a translated Elite idiom/turn of phrase.

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

The line also serves another purpose, you know? It may still be just as clunky, but it also signifies that the Chief is actually now reflecting on that statement.

Wouldn't we assume the latter regardless? If we remember that Cortana said that to him, then the Chief does. The problem is the 343 writers didn't trust us to recognize a callback when we heard one. That's how it felt to me. Looking back at the old thread, ibeechu made the point I think you're making, which is that the Chief has never been that reflective, and the line makes it clear that now he is. I thought we got the same through body language, but it's a fair point.

I agree that the body language did a great job of communicating that; at the same time, I think folks give "the audience" too much credit. There's plenty of overt stuff people seem to miss as well.

I think punctuating that the Chief is reflecting for seemingly the first time in the games was important, even if it felt heavy handed. I try my best to forgive smaller issues like this because I understand that they're compromises made for the sake of the wider audience.

Okay, this is good.

I know anyone who cares about this and is still reading has the lines ingrained as they are and will naturally resist any change, but hear me out--I believe these are better set ups.

Scene 1

Johnson: Come on, now. For our sake, you two need to quit this habit of trying to kill each other.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

Scene 2

Hood: I accept that he's gone, but ...

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

The line also serves another purpose, you know? It may still be just as clunky, but it also signifies that the Chief is actually now reflecting on that statement.

Wouldn't we assume the latter regardless? If we remember that Cortana said that to him, then the Chief does. The problem is the 343 writers didn't trust us to recognize a callback when we heard one. That's how it felt to me. Looking back at the old thread, ibeechu made the point I think you're making, which is that the Chief has never been that reflective, and the line makes it clear that now he is. I thought we got the same through body language, but it's a fair point.

I agree that the body language did a great job of communicating that; at the same time, I think folks give "the audience" too much credit. There's plenty of overt stuff people seem to miss as well.

I think punctuating that the Chief is reflecting for seemingly the first time in the games was important, even if it felt heavy handed. I try my best to forgive smaller issues like this because I understand that they're compromises made for the sake of the wider audience.

Then do it more gracefully. People don't just talk their internal monologue out loud. Have the MC pull out and glance at the chip Cortana lived on… or something else non verbal that communicates the same thing.

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

The line also serves another purpose, you know? It may still be just as clunky, but it also signifies that the Chief is actually now reflecting on that statement.

Wouldn't we assume the latter regardless? If we remember that Cortana said that to him, then the Chief does. The problem is the 343 writers didn't trust us to recognize a callback when we heard one. That's how it felt to me. Looking back at the old thread, ibeechu made the point I think you're making, which is that the Chief has never been that reflective, and the line makes it clear that now he is. I thought we got the same through body language, but it's a fair point.

I agree that the body language did a great job of communicating that; at the same time, I think folks give "the audience" too much credit. There's plenty of overt stuff people seem to miss as well.

Welp, you've triggered me here. I’m tempted to go on an extended riff on the dangers of condescending to an audience, how it erodes trust, and leads to a downward spiral culturally and socially, but I'll keep the focus on storytelling. Experiencing a story is not a one-way transference of information. Storytelling must engage the imagination--the audience is a participant and good stories allow imaginative space for the audience to fill in the gaps for themselves. it's the difference between a mundane and a great story. I can have a new epiphany in my 50s about a story I first read as a teenager because the story is that rich, and what makes the story rich? It has layers of meaning, and works its magic when the audience is permitted to uncover those layers on their own. It’s the hard part, though, of creating good stuff—giving the audience enough info but not too much. To me it’s a much bigger sin to give them too much than too little, but 343 erred on both sides with Halo 4.

I think punctuating that the Chief is reflecting for seemingly the first time in the games was important, even if it felt heavy handed. I try my best to forgive smaller issues like this because I understand that they're compromises made for the sake of the wider audience.

It’s a creative work, and neither of us is wrong, but again my criticism here is part of a larger criticism. 343 had a big challenge ahead of them, trying to expand a popular universe, not alienate fans, not retread what had been done, and attract new fans, all in a game, which requires intense work just to make it fun. On the too much/too little challenge, I think they failed by nearly requiring you to be a hard-core, Greg-Bear-reading fan to understand the larger plot, while failing at smaller moments like the one we’ve been discussing, where less would’ve been more. Breitzen recently reminded me of the Serenity movie, which faced similar challenges, but superbly got new viewers up to speed while adding new depth to familiar characters. Where 343 knocked it out of the park, as far as i’m concerned, is in focusing on the John and Cortana relationship at the heart of Halo.

We played the game, writers. We all heard her say that to him once. Ugh.

The line also serves another purpose, you know? It may still be just as clunky, but it also signifies that the Chief is actually now reflecting on that statement.

Wouldn't we assume the latter regardless? If we remember that Cortana said that to him, then the Chief does. The problem is the 343 writers didn't trust us to recognize a callback when we heard one. That's how it felt to me. Looking back at the old thread, ibeechu made the point I think you're making, which is that the Chief has never been that reflective, and the line makes it clear that now he is. I thought we got the same through body language, but it's a fair point.

I agree that the body language did a great job of communicating that; at the same time, I think folks give "the audience" too much credit. There's plenty of overt stuff people seem to miss as well.

I think punctuating that the Chief is reflecting for seemingly the first time in the games was important, even if it felt heavy handed. I try my best to forgive smaller issues like this because I understand that they're compromises made for the sake of the wider audience.

Then do it more gracefully. People don't just talk their internal monologue out loud. Have the MC pull out and glance at the chip Cortana lived on… or something else non verbal that communicates the same thing.

Show, don't tell.

...because there isn't a line preceding it. Arby is responding to the Chief having charged forth and stuck a pistol into his mouth. He gave himself up to avoid escalating the moment, and the "it" is the Chief getting the better of him.

Arby is not primarily making a response to Johnson. The camera even cuts Johnson out of the frame with the appropriate timing to make it look like Arby is slamming the line straight at the Chief's face. There's some ambiguous potential for secondary meaning with respect to Johnson's line, but it's not where the main energy of the scene is going.

...because there isn't a line preceding it. Arby is responding to the Chief having charged forth and stuck a pistol into his mouth. He gave himself up to avoid escalating the moment, and the "it" is the Chief getting the better of him.

Arby is not primarily making a response to Johnson. The camera even cuts Johnson out of the frame with the appropriate timing to make it look like Arby is slamming the line straight at the Chief's face. There's some ambiguous potential for secondary meaning with respect to Johnson's line, but it's not where the main energy of the scene is going.

This is the best, most compelling interpretation of the line I've ever read. Too bad it's fan fiction, because there is a line preceding it, and that is part of the context in which the line is delivered, and the poor set up detracts from your thesis.

A second attempt at a rewrite that serves your narrative.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

But that sounds like Arbiter is implying himself isn't easily killable, doesn't it?

...because there isn't a line preceding it. Arby is responding to the Chief having charged forth and stuck a pistol into his mouth. He gave himself up to avoid escalating the moment, and the "it" is the Chief getting the better of him.

Arby is not primarily making a response to Johnson. The camera even cuts Johnson out of the frame with the appropriate timing to make it look like Arby is slamming the line straight at the Chief's face. There's some ambiguous potential for secondary meaning with respect to Johnson's line, but it's not where the main energy of the scene is going.

This is the best, most compelling interpretation of the line I've ever read. Too bad it's fan fiction, because there is a line preceding it, and that is part of the context in which the line is delivered, and the poor set up detracts from your thesis.

A second attempt at a rewrite that serves your narrative.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

I just watched the scene again to make sure my mind wasn't playing tricks on me. I see what you are saying in that Johnson's line immediately precedes it. On the other hand, it feels like he's a spectator in the drama happening with Arby and the Chief. While Johnson's line is there, the Arbiter is responding to the Chief's actions. I've always interpreted it this way so I don't think it's a super niche way of reading the scene.

Too bad it's fan fiction, because there is a line preceding it, and that is part of the context in which the line is delivered

Visually the camera frames it as directed at the Chief. Contextually it makes more sense as a response to the Chief. It being trash talk is also more coherent in like of the subsequent part of the interaction, where the Chief continues to physically impede Arby before untangling.

Johnson's line is part of the context in which it's delivered, but transcript position does not imply primary conversation flow; a second party responding to a first party's actions without directly addressing a third party's interjection is not exotic.

You can call it "fan fiction", but I think your position that the line is directed at Johnson is much more tenuous. It's very difficult for me to watch the scene as having that conversation flow, it just doesn't fit the rhythm and geometry, and obviously the dialogue doesn't make sense. I guess we just read it very differently.

A second attempt at a rewrite that serves your narrative.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

That's a different meaning, and I don't see how it clears up your problem with the scene.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

But that sounds like Arbiter is implying himself isn't easily killable, doesn't it?

Correct, it underscores what uberfoop is saying. Arbiter's fearlessness and control in this situation. He's letting the Chief do what he's doing--otherwise it wouldn't be easy at all.

...because there isn't a line preceding it. Arby is responding to the Chief having charged forth and stuck a pistol into his mouth. He gave himself up to avoid escalating the moment, and the "it" is the Chief getting the better of him.

Arby is not primarily making a response to Johnson. The camera even cuts Johnson out of the frame with the appropriate timing to make it look like Arby is slamming the line straight at the Chief's face. There's some ambiguous potential for secondary meaning with respect to Johnson's line, but it's not where the main energy of the scene is going.

This is the best, most compelling interpretation of the line I've ever read. Too bad it's fan fiction, because there is a line preceding it, and that is part of the context in which the line is delivered, and the poor set up detracts from your thesis.

A second attempt at a rewrite that serves your narrative.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

I just watched the scene again to make sure my mind wasn't playing tricks on me. I see what you are saying in that Johnson's line immediately precedes it. On the other hand, it feels like he's a spectator in the drama happening with Arby and the Chief. While Johnson's line is there, the Arbiter is responding to the Chief's actions. I've always interpreted it this way so I don't think it's a super niche way of reading the scene.

With good writing he could be responding to both. Giving uberfoop credit that the Arbiter's primarily talking to the Chief, Johnson's line doesn't have to make the Arbiter's line into a non sequitur.

Too bad it's fan fiction, because there is a line preceding it, and that is part of the context in which the line is delivered

Visually the camera frames it as directed at the Chief. Contextually it makes more sense as a response to the Chief. It being trash talk is also more coherent in like of the subsequent part of the interaction, where the Chief continues to physically impede Arby before untangling.

Johnson's line is part of the context in which it's delivered, but transcript position does not imply primary conversation flow; a second party responding to a first party's actions without directly addressing a third party's interjection is not exotic.

You can call it "fan fiction", but I think your position that the line is directed at Johnson is much more tenuous. It's very difficult for me to watch the scene as having that conversation flow, it just doesn't fit the rhythm and geometry, and obviously the dialogue doesn't make sense. I guess we just read it very differently.

We can't wish Johnson's line away with talk of conversation flow and act like it doesn't affect the interpretation of what the Arbiter says. You've said it doesn't make sense, and I agree, but that hasn't stopped many people trying to explain to me how what Arbiter says makes sense in response to Johnson.

A second attempt at a rewrite that serves your narrative.

Johnson: Come on, Chief. For our sake, don't kill an ally.

Arbiter: Were it so easy.

That's a different meaning, and I don't see how it clears up your problem with the scene.

Not so different and not non-sensical as before. We get your interpretation of the cinematic--that the focus is on Arbiter and the Chief, and the Arbiter is trash talking, but we don't, on another level, get our brain tied up over the clumsy dialogue sequence we have just heard.

The "it" is now explicitly "killing arbiter" but the "it" on a visceral level is the Chief sticking a gun in Arbiter's face, which as you insightfully pointed out, the Arbiter has allowed. "It" can be multiple things, and that's the kind of ambiguity I suspect Robot and I like.

We can't wish Johnson's line away with talk of conversation flow and act like it doesn't affect the interpretation of what the Arbiter says.

I'm not wishing it away or arguing that it doesn't create context for Arby's line. I think it exists primarily to do that: it breaks up the Chief's action so that Arby gets a natural window to respond, and sets the stage by acknowledging the pre-existing beef between the two characters. Otherwise it would be a confusing scene, especially to new players.

We can't wish Johnson's line away with talk of conversation flow and act like it doesn't affect the interpretation of what the Arbiter says.

I'm not wishing it away or arguing that it doesn't create context for Arby's line. I think it exists primarily to do that: it breaks up the Chief's action so that Arby gets a natural window to respond, and sets the stage by acknowledging the pre-existing beef between the two characters. Otherwise it would be a confusing scene, especially to new players.

I think it's sloppy and confusing as is, but reasonable people can disagree. I was reading another forum where someone was saying how great "were it so easy" is, and another person said, "I never understood that line." I've said all I can think of to say about the scene. Regardless, the last scene is the most egregiously nonsensical. There's probably other parts of the script I could nit pick but its the repetition that kills me. It indicates the writers thought this was a gem, and it's disappointing that they poorly handled their gems.

(Alternative title - "Language Rigidity".)

[ALL OF WHATEVER ALL THIS IS.]

Geez, are we Halo fans or what! What a stupid conversation. What a STUPID hill to die on.

...sO aNyWaY hErE iS mY tWo cEnTs. :P

Let me just throw this out here right now; "Were it so easy" is my favorite line of the entire series. Yes, even more than "Tank beats everything" or "Don't make a girl a promise...", which while very wise, is not as usefully quotable in the everyday quite like "Were it so easy". Something where I can bring both meaning and a little joy from my fandom heart.

By the time I finish, it should be clear why, so let's just start this off in ernest by saying with the warmest heart; Kermit, brother, what am I reading here?

You mind if I guess? OH YOU DON'T MIND! Fantastic! What a fan-tastic conversation. ;D

This WHOLE thing is "Old man yells at cloud". It's not about age, but all about being frustrated that this idiom can't be crammed into some sort of self(?) defined box that, as far as I can tell, is just irrational. Which, hey, again, not a hit on you... just on the take. I've been sitting here reading this and every counter you bring is either more convoluted or so nit-picky that the meat of whatever argument that is trying to be made is no longer recognizable to what it was ever before.

... Which I KNOW, FANDOM, but ... ... ...DANG. LOL.

"Were it so easy" WORKS BECAUSE it's so simple. And, for WHATEVER reason Kerm, that simplicity seems to gnaw on ya. Which, I gotta say, is odd as ALL THE CONTEXT needed for the message is right there on the screen. Nothing more needs to be said but those four words, but it seems you're bent on interjecting SOMETHING more into the line, that... simply isn't.

Let just, look. Plain and simple, bone and stone (shut-up bluerunner) simplicity of what we have on screen.

Chief has a GUN in ARBYS mandibled clamshell. WHAT MORE IS NEEDED?! You brought up Johnson having some line, but IT literally DOESN'T MATTER! That may bother you, and you're gonna have to deal with it, but its an easy math; GUN IN FACE > Paraphrased "Why can't we all be friends!"

It would be true in real life, and it's true here. And it's so true, in fact, that in or out, there or not, Johnson doesn't matter. What Johnson says is of pure irrelevance, no "wishing" required. The meaning of Arbys first words are the same either way, there or not. Arby isn't talking to Johnson, Arby is talking to Chief. The guy with the FREEK'n gun in his four way pie hole. (Shut-up bluerunner.)

"Were it so easy".

What is it? REALLY?! Is that REALLY a question that needed to be ASKED?! Did I mention the GUN in his face? But hey, fine, lets just boil it down.

In short, it's a "as if you'd get so close otherwise". OH! BUT YOU SAID OTHERWISE! That means Johnson IS relevant and-NO! Not done. It's saying, not only "as if you'd get so close otherwise", but also calls into question; As if Chief could spring into some bravado action and just press a weapon to a head of an Elite. Which, as you may remember, are QUITE spry for 7.5-8.6 feet/2.2m-2.6m tall bipeds. If the relationship was different, the line could also have been something along the same idea as "you can't be serious right now".

"Were it so easy", to kill an Elite. His action in abstaining, short of his line, means he is a friendly or at least, not a foe. Because, again,"Were it so easy".

Johnson isn't needed. ALL the context is right there IN THE MOMENT.

In so many words "Were it so easy" says EVERYTHING. It's a keystone moment that sets the tone. Which is of course WHY I like it as it does this and more with such simplicity, as I in turn can be so... much... but anyway...

With "Were it so easy" here, well... as if it was so easy to kill Master Chief John-117. And since it's an elite, I think it also fair to say such line is out of respect for John, which in turn speaks about Arbys character, and... ALL FROM FOUR WORDS! Plus it's a call back to the start of the game for some cheap "art! "oh-muh-gerd-he-said-that-at-the-beginning" easy cheese, but... it's good! It WORKS!

And again, it says EVERYTHING, with but the same four words. It's beautiful.

Now, you don't have to agree, that's fine. You may still SOMEHOW find it "sloppy and confusing". Fine. But please at least understand WHY so many of us are (if I may be so bold to speak) scratching our heads as you defend this hill as if you were the king of it.

I no longer dismiss it as a bad line. I now say it's s a good line, badly set up (twice). That's progress. Even tried to fix it without touching the beloved line or negatively affecting your interpretations.

I have a greater appreciation for it, but I can't love it, because I've always heard it as a non sequitur. It's an honest criticism. This isn't math. Our answers don't have to match.

Again, such a take makes me scratch my head. I was unaware I was committing to some battle. How is gaining a new appreciation for something a defeat? Why speak at all if not to grow wiser from what makes us weary?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, congratulations on your "defeat", I guess. May it bring you fresh horizons.

- No text -

Again, such a take makes me scratch my head. I was unaware I was committing to some battle. How is gaining a new appreciation for something a defeat? Why speak at all if not to grow wiser from what makes us weary?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, congratulations on your "defeat", I guess. May it bring you fresh horizons.

I'm an English geek, friend. It's been way over 20 years since I've been in grad school or taught, but I enjoy a good debate about language and the arts. This one made me think. Maybe I made someone else think. You said I was playing king of the hill, ready to die on it and so forth. I followed your lead. That's where "defeat" comes in. I'm off the hill. Thanks to all who participated.

I quite enjoyed this thread so thank you. Felt like the good ol' days.

I was never confused by this line.

It seemed pretty clear to me even the first time that the Arbiter was saying he didn't believe anyone could kill the Chief easily, and so he's still alive.

- No text -

thanks for kind information.

- No text -

thanks a bunch.

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -