Not saying that in the slightest. Not even an ounce. And no sarcasm here. You don't even get what I'm referencing. I think you would do well to listen to KornyHero, too, and just let it go. Or you know what, I will! Have fun trying to figure it out, I guess.

Just please stop doing this whole "I can act like a douche if I also act like I'm all smiles and rainbows" thing, it makes you come off as an even bigger douche.

I would just like to let you know that I wasn't referring to you at all with that post. Your post came shortly after mine, we had a nice discussion, and that could have been it. Instead, Korny became the hero we all need and deserve. And Vagueness still doesn't understand sarcasm or irony. But aside from that, we're all good, and I appreciated your replies.

So now you're going to say it was all sarcasm or irony, after you defended your statements? I think you're the one that doesn't understand. If it's a joke you should just let it stand on its own. If it's not meant seriously, that's probably the best defense of it.

I would just like to let you know that I wasn't referring to you at all with that post. Your post came shortly after mine, we had a nice discussion, and that could have been it. Instead, Korny became the hero we all need and deserve. And Vagueness still doesn't understand sarcasm or irony. But aside from that, we're all good, and I appreciated your replies.

Oh no worries!

I know reading tone on the internet is hard, and it's easy to interpret everything in the worst possible way. This forum is basically the only place where I don't instinctively do that and I give people the benefit of the doubt. If something can be taken in a playful-sarcastic light or a bitchy-sarcastic light, I assume the former on this forum. It's served me well enough so far.

(:

It wouldn't have been the first time I've been called a 343i apologist, so even if you were referring to me, it wouldn't have bothered me. It just doesn't mean what I thought! /:

apologia combines apo (from) and logos (logic/reason). The formal use of the term refered to a defense in a court, or reasoned argument. Hence, one who makes an apology is an apologist. The two terms have since diverged in meaning.

I looked it up:

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

That's not even close to what I just assumed it meant, which was more along the lines someone being apologetic for something. I've always been a bit sore about the term, and never really understood why it was thrown around so much. Like, I'm not apologizing for anything, I just happen to like it! Why should I apologize?

TL;DR--I'm an idiot!

So you're saying because I made a spelling mistake my opinion doesn't count?

No, that's pretty much incidental. Calling lines bad and not just saying "this conversation is bad" or "the line telling you about X is bad" but actually quoting them (or paraphrasing), and quoting them wrong (or not even paraphrasing accurately), implies you're more interested in calling the writing bad than actually looking at how it's bad. It would take maybe one minute to check if you got the line right, probably less time than it takes to type up one of your posts, but you didn't, because (theorizing here) you care about getting across how bad it is than why it's bad. That would be fine, except quoting things is generally what people do when they want to look well-informed and smart, and doing it about a given topic and getting it wrong makes it backfire and make you look like a bit of an ass when you talk to people who have their shit together with regard to that topic. Getting the same quote (about the Vault of Glass) wrong for more than a year (which I admittedly only know because at one point I went back and read a bunch of threads I missed), that takes it to a different level.

The purpose it serves to me is mostly to let me give a snarky response to it (like "Why do you ask?" or "You wait until now to say this?" or "No, why?"). Maybe that was intended, maybe it wasn't, but I don't see anything wrong with it (in my obviously subjective view).

This is exactly the point I was making and the entire reason I brought up the example in the first place. The funniest part of that line is me, at home, in my chair, making a funny quip to mock the ghost (and the awful writing of said ghost). I expect better from entertainment that I pay for.

That's fine.

It would be interesting if the entire game script was laid out such that there were awkward silences during which the player was assumed to be filling in dialogue for the main character, but that's not a trope of the game at all, so it doesn't seem to have been the intent in this location. Add to it that the main character does occasionally speak (the "little light" line is the funniest thing from vanilla Destiny, imo), and I take that as further evidence that the writers did not intend for us to fill in the chatter that is so painfully missing. Plus, you know, it would be super hard to code dynamic responses to the player's audio that made any semblance of sense.

Again, that's what I like about it, I'm not saying it's intentional or easily reproducible.
I notice you don't address how it characterizes your Ghost.

I assume it has something to do with your constant going-ons about how Millennials are this or Millennials are that and making everything and anything about age. You've never directed that at me, but you sure love to do it. You should stop discriminating against people based on age and generation, especially when you largely incorrectly apply it. I guess I'm calling you a hypocrite. But hey, Millennials are entitled and whiny and petulant and such.

No, just you.

And you just can't resist saying it whenever you get the chance, even without knowing the age of the people posting!

He resisted doing that in the post you replied to.

For example, I'm certain I can find someone at Bungie, perhaps several people, who hold political and ethical ideas different, even antithetical to my own. I can still look upon Destiny, Marathon, Myth, etc. as good games.

Likewise I can go to a bakery and buy a cake from someone who doesn't agree with my politics.

People are going to disagree with you. If you are in a place where everyone thinks and believes the same, with no discussion or debate, there is something wrong.

You are free not to associate with someone whom you disagree with, but I think people are really trying hard of late to make little intellectual walled gardens carefully weeded of all inconvenient thoughts and opinions, obsessing over everything that makes someone different.

Instead you should emphasize the things you have in common. I have gay cousins, but like Mr. Card I believe homosexuality is disordered. I can sit down with them and have dinner and we can talk about thinks without thinking that either side arguing in bad faith. My Aunt is a pacifist who hates guns and would see them all banned. I used to have a job test firing .50 cals. She get's exasperated with me at times but we still see each other over Christmas.

There are ideas that require confrontation, actions that must be answered, but science fiction books or video games seldom rise to that level.

thinking that you can like someone's work and still not want to patronize it.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

"I like this guy's books, but I don't want to give him my money."

I saw a lot of people who were suddenly okay with going to see the Ender's Game movie when they found out that OSC didn't get any royalties from it.

thinking that you can like someone's work and still not want to patronize it.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

The article writer went through... almost a crisis of faith or identity, because they couldn't like and respect their literary hero any more, but they couldn't stop liking his books, and eventually came around to the position that you can still like someone's work even if you don't like the author.

I think that's true, and that's how I try to treat some creators of things I like, but I also think for most people it feels like doublethink (understandably, because most artists put pieces of themselves into their work), and I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want to put in the effort to have that state of mind. I also think some issues are too important to ignore (not to say that this is necessarily one of them, but they exist).

I think most people do OK with that. The related but different distinction I see people having trouble with - and OSC is an example of this - is thinking that you can like someone's work and still not want to patronize it.

The council of Elrond is seriously my favourite part of any book. Ever.

I think we may be in the minority, there. I've heard and read from many hardcore Tolkien fans that think the Council of Elrond is awful and that it is bad story telling and bad writing. I can see their point, in that it is basically the definition of telling and not showing, but I think it is a huge testament to the world that Tolkien built that I would not mind if that chapter was four times longer than it was.

World-building is a large part of why I enjoy the first half of Fellowship more than anything (I love every bit of it). There's something very comforting to me about reading about the Hobbits in the Shire, and their stay with Bombadil (and their stay in Rivendell).

I assume it has something to do with your constant going-ons about how Millennials are this or Millennials are that and making everything and anything about age. You've never directed that at me, but you sure love to do it. You should stop discriminating against people based on age and generation, especially when you largely incorrectly apply it. I guess I'm calling you a hypocrite. But hey, Millennials are entitled and whiny and petulant and such. And you just can't resist saying it whenever you get the chance, even without knowing the age of the people posting!

I assume you're talking about this, the one time I've typed the word millennial on this forum or maybe anywhere else. I don't think about that label very often. (Had to double-check the spelling.) My cultural reference points are different from many others here, and I probably do highlight those too often (I apologize), but if I'm honest I probably feel self-conscious sometimes and other times maybe feel that the wizened aspect of my perspective is the only semi-unique thing I have to offer. The only real "old man" complaint I remember expressing here was about the casual crassness that seems more pervasive than it used to be. In general, though, millennials (most I've met have been gamers) impress the hell out of me. Many of you are smarter that I'll ever be, and kind-hearted to boot. You're much more accepting of older people than I think my generation was at your age. Some of my favorite people in the world hang out here and I call many of you friends and think of you as peers even though for some of you I'm old enough to be your dad.

Let's say you're right, though, Avateur, and you kids really bug me and I really want you to get off my lawn. Don't assume my comment to you had anything to do with that, your actual age, what generation you're a part of, or any sense of entitlement your generation may or may not have. My comment was about your negativity and yours alone.