The problem with Paper Mario: Sticker Star

#171wiiking96Posted 11/25/2012 5:17:14 PM
quietisgood posted...
except his "analysis" doesn't prove anything, try again.

I didn't say it did. I said it showed how the story is indeed a major focus in PM64. Do you deny that? The TC is just letting us visualize how narration is heavily used the game.

again, stop posting until you learn basic logical concepts.

Again with the insults. You are being way too vague, what "logical concepts" do I not know? I think you're just not reading my posts carefully enough and misinterpreted me.
---
Quote and Curly Brace for Super Smash Bros 4!
Appeasing an unlimited amount of chocolate . . .
#172quietisgoodPosted 11/25/2012 5:19:57 PM
I didn't say it did. I said it showed how the story is indeed a major focus in PM64. Do you deny that? The TC is just letting us visualize how narration is heavily used the game.

oh, so you're saying that he didn't prove anything, and so the burden of proof is still on the OP to prove his initial statement, not me.
---
Hypothetically, if the only choice you've got is to do the wrong thing, then it's not really the wrong thing, it's more like fate.
#173wiiking96Posted 11/25/2012 6:00:44 PM
Maybe if you first gave an example of a game you consider story centric we can compare the two. That would help immensely in this discussion.
---
Quote and Curly Brace for Super Smash Bros 4!
Appeasing an unlimited amount of chocolate . . .
#174Counterpwnt(Topic Creator)Posted 11/25/2012 6:11:19 PM
Pretty sure I defined what I considered to be elemental to constructing a story, and have then provided numerous examples of it throughout just the first 45-60 minutes of the game, as well as providing my assumptions as to why the developers chose to do what they did.

You know what the problem is here? I don't have to prove anything. You do not represent a body of people. I don't actually care whether or not individuals think Paper Mario is story-centric or not. I think it is, and I think Sticker Star isn't.

More people agree with me, so far, than disagree. I've even gotten private messages to that point.

I've defined what I mean by the term story-centric, and shown how Paper Mario fulfills that definition almost constantly. There are story elements used to align Mario with his partners, sub-goals, and various tasks. The lore of the game is leaned upon heavily to provide almost all of the action.

Either refute my specific examples with something more than "lol, this is false," or quit posting.
#175Counterpwnt(Topic Creator)Posted 11/25/2012 6:14:02 PM
quietisgood posted...

lol.
1)keep backpedaling bro, "a plot that holds the entire exposition together" is entirely different from "more emphasis based on story-related elements than gameplay-related elements" (to say these are the same things would get you laughed out of any academic setting fyi) the first is something that could apply to pretty much every game with a plot.
2)explain what? you haven't explained a god damn thing in three ****ing posts.
all you've done is hyper-analyze the plot of paper mario, you haven't logically constructed an argument. the only thing you've proven is that you're insane.

when you actually make a point (one that's related to what the argument was about in the first place), instead of a glorified plot summary, you'll get a response.


1) No. It. Is. Not. The plot is the focus. It holds everything together. It is given more emphasis than anything else. How are those statements contradictory?

2) I have spelled out in simple English how Paper Mario uses plot elements to construct itself. If you didn't understand, you can ask me what I meant.
#176quietisgoodPosted 11/25/2012 6:23:02 PM(edited)
Counterpwnt posted...
quietisgood posted...

lol.
1)keep backpedaling bro, "a plot that holds the entire exposition together" is entirely different from "more emphasis based on story-related elements than gameplay-related elements" (to say these are the same things would get you laughed out of any academic setting fyi) the first is something that could apply to pretty much every game with a plot.
2)explain what? you haven't explained a god damn thing in three ****ing posts.
all you've done is hyper-analyze the plot of paper mario, you haven't logically constructed an argument. the only thing you've proven is that you're insane.

when you actually make a point (one that's related to what the argument was about in the first place), instead of a glorified plot summary, you'll get a response.


1) No. It. Is. Not. The plot is the focus. It holds everything together. It is given more emphasis than anything else. How are those statements contradictory?

2) I have spelled out in simple English how Paper Mario uses plot elements to construct itself. If you didn't understand, you can ask me what I meant.


1) i didn't say they were contradictory, I said they were completely different statements. is reading that hard for you?
2) no, you've done nothing but continuously hyper-analyze the plot. you haven't constructed an argument that proves anything. all you've done is continuously list random things, you haven't logically connected those things to form a coherent argument to prove your point.

I've defined what I mean by the term story-centric, and shown how Paper Mario fulfills that definition almost constantly. There are story elements used to align Mario with his partners, sub-goals, and various tasks. The lore of the game is leaned upon heavily to provide almost all of the action.
you have yet to show how paper mario has more story elements that gameplay ones. (because you can't show that)
---
Hypothetically, if the only choice you've got is to do the wrong thing, then it's not really the wrong thing, it's more like fate.
#177Attack_A_HorsePosted 11/25/2012 6:32:13 PM
Counterpwnt posted...
Pretty sure I defined what I considered to be elemental to constructing a story, and have then provided numerous examples of it throughout just the first 45-60 minutes of the game, as well as providing my assumptions as to why the developers chose to do what they did.

You know what the problem is here? I don't have to prove anything. You do not represent a body of people. I don't actually care whether or not individuals think Paper Mario is story-centric or not. I think it is, and I think Sticker Star isn't.

More people agree with me, so far, than disagree. I've even gotten private messages to that point.

I've defined what I mean by the term story-centric, and shown how Paper Mario fulfills that definition almost constantly. There are story elements used to align Mario with his partners, sub-goals, and various tasks. The lore of the game is leaned upon heavily to provide almost all of the action.

Either refute my specific examples with something more than "lol, this is false," or quit posting.


Again, anyone can analyze every sentence, word and action in a game. Even Sticker Star. That doesn't prove anything.

And yes, you do have to prove what you're saying. Why even bother making a topic if you're just going to say you don't care when people refute your points. I don't know if you understand how to even make an argument. You make a statement, make points and then you link your points to your statement. You make bold claims, post irrelevant nonsense and then don't even bother showing how your points prove what your initial statement was.

I can tell you're just angry and have nothing logical to respond to the valid points, I, as well as many other users are posting. Don't bring up imaginary PMs as though they matter. I'm receiving PMs saying you're insane and everything I'm saying is spot on, just so you know. Don't believe me? WELL I DONT CARE!!!! (thats what you sound like BTW)

You've shown how you can change your definition of story centric when people disagree with you. You've shown how you completely change your opinion and points when people point out the obvious holes in your "arguments." (Longer MarioWiki summary, more characters on boxart, PM being an "interactive cinematic experience", etc). I've said it earlier in the topic and I'll say it again. You are very good at saying nothing. You hide your points in well-written English and complex vocabulary. When you break down and analyze what you say, you're actually not saying much at all.

SeaArrKing just posted about how he doesn't believe PM is story-centric and even used other games as examples. Good job brushing right over that. Obviously then you act like no one refutes your points. It's funny because you've become all the things that you criticized other users for earlier in the topic (skipping over posts, acting like a troll, etc).

You're so done. Begone.
#178LUlGIPosted 11/25/2012 6:41:00 PM
This is such a stupid f***ing argument, even for you guys.
#179Counterpwnt(Topic Creator)Posted 11/26/2012 11:10:31 AM
quietisgood posted...

1) i didn't say they were contradictory, I said they were completely different statements. is reading that hard for you?
2) no, you've done nothing but continuously hyper-analyze the plot. you haven't constructed an argument that proves anything. all you've done is continuously list random things, you haven't logically connected those things to form a coherent argument to prove your point.

I've defined what I mean by the term story-centric, and shown how Paper Mario fulfills that definition almost constantly. There are story elements used to align Mario with his partners, sub-goals, and various tasks. The lore of the game is leaned upon heavily to provide almost all of the action.
you have yet to show how paper mario has more story elements that gameplay ones. (because you can't show that)


Dude, they're not completely different statements. They're saying the exact same thing. Whether the game emphasizes plot over anything else, or the game is held together by plot, those statements end up meaning the exact same thing. One is the effect and one is the cause. How about instead of picking at words, you show how they're different statements?

One means the game as a blank slate leans more heavily on plot elements than any other. The other means that the game as a finished product leans more heavily on plot elements than any other. Case in point.

I have done more than hyper-analyze the plot. I have written what happens and left it open to interpretation. It's very, very, very clear at this point that the game is story-centric. The only combat in the first hour is a staged fight meant to lend to the plot elements. How can anyone argue with that?

You seem to either refuse to read what I've written or you can't understand what I'm saying. It's very frustrating.
#180Counterpwnt(Topic Creator)Posted 11/26/2012 11:25:22 AM

Again, anyone can analyze every sentence, word and action in a game. Even Sticker Star. That doesn't prove anything.


Yes it does. That's the most basic and thorough way to prove my point. It's concerned with what actually happens in the game, so writing that out makes perfect sense.

And yes, you do have to prove what you're saying. Why even bother making a topic if you're just going to say you don't care when people refute your points. I don't know if you understand how to even make an argument. You make a statement, make points and then you link your points to your statement. You make bold claims, post irrelevant nonsense and then don't even bother showing how your points prove what your initial statement was.


Nothing I've posted is irrelevant nonsense. Irrelevant nonsense would be uhciuqecrkejcebchewbcjhb. You lean so heavily on pejorative statements while blanketing over the fact that I made enough sense in my first post to garner a myriad of responsesówe're on page 18, after all, and again, most people have written in to agree with me and even thank me for elucidating their feelings that something was missing from Sticker Star.

"I can tell you're just angry and have nothing logical to respond to the valid points, I, as well as many other users are posting."

Many other users? Like, 2 other people?

"Don't bring up imaginary PMs as though they matter."

They do. They're proof that I am closer to right than wrong. People recognize the truth on a subconscious level when they see or read it.

"I'm receiving PMs saying you're insane and everything I'm saying is spot on, just so you know. Don't believe me? WELL I DONT CARE!!!! (thats what you sound like BTW)"

Except I don't, because I'm well-written and intelligent. I have reason, good grammar, thorough analysis, andólet's face itóprobably age on my side.

You've shown how you can change your definition of story centric when people disagree with you. You've shown how you completely change your opinion and points when people point out the obvious holes in your "arguments." (Longer MarioWiki summary, more characters on boxart, PM being an "interactive cinematic experience", etc). I've said it earlier in the topic and I'll say it again. You are very good at saying nothing. You hide your points in well-written English and complex vocabulary. When you break down and analyze what you say, you're actually not saying much at all.


That's just not true. My definition of story-centric is identical to itself to all but the most nit-picking, anal retentive people who think that arguments consist of looking at the tiniest possible point of contention and hanging it up like a neon sign. How about you respond to some my points? I will repost them and remove the narrative. Give it your best shot.

SeaArrKing just posted about how he doesn't believe PM is story-centric and even used other games as examples. Good job brushing right over that. Obviously then you act like no one refutes your points. It's funny because you've become all the things that you criticized other users for earlier in the topic (skipping over posts, acting like a troll, etc).


I'm... acting like a troll? I never called anyone a troll, for one. I said "don't feed the trolls" as an off-the-cuff comment that if someone WAS trolling, we should ignore them. I ahven't gotten around to SeaArrKing yet because every time I respond to one of you, both you and quietisgood feel the need to respond to what I said saying entirely similar but slightly different things. I have a full time job, I have to pick my battles.

You're so done. Begone.


Do you get to decide that now?