robofreak wrote:Seriously Shadowman? You keep beating this dead horse to the point that I went from thinking it was a good game to being an amazing game just because you persist in believing it is bad because if it's inconsistencies in whic if you look at the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Why? Because it is a game who's sole purpose is to ENTERTAIN. That's why any of us buy video games in the first place.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not particularly entertained by massive plot holes.
robofreak wrote:You've stated your dislike and your reasons for being annoyed with it. I think it's time to give it a rest.
I'll stop stating it when people stop arguing with me over it.
robofreak wrote:I don't even see why you bought the game in the first place if it was going to make you this upset over the frikkin thing.
Because I didn't think it was going to be as bad as it was.
Counterpunch wrote:Shadowman wrote:And worse yet, the party [spoiler]never planned for a complete shutdown of Cocoon, despite knowing that if they killed Orphan it would happen.
"Cocoon won't die, we're not here for that. We came for you"
"Refusing me merely condemns another to face your focus tomorrow."
"Destruction and salvation, two irreconcilable focuses."
Throw out all the trope page and commentary you want. Those three lines from the game alone show that the party was clear in its goal, they had no choice but to act. Yes, there is certainly a Dues Ex Machina component to the way the game ends. That doesn't dismiss that the party is placed in a no win situation and even with that being the case, they choose to act because inaction brings certain doom for everyone and everything. Saving Cocoon meant the big-bad had to go. There was no scenario where saving Cocoon would have allowed him to remain.
Um...maybe I missed the line, but where exactly do they say if they found a way to escape that chamber at the end, everyone else was screwed?