View Single Post
Old 2018-05-27, 09:25   Link #79
Klashikari
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv175
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 33
This is the last time I'm repeating myself: it is a flaw since the story is basing on time travel and world line shift concepts, both of which work extremely closely to the concept of causality.

When a story involves that kind of stuff, the author(s) must be sure they don't step out of their bonds and constraints of such kind of stories.
And this is a great flaw in 0 because showing the result without the cause OR elements that would give a natural conclusion ot it doesn't cut at all, and as I said, there is -no evidence- about anything that was different. The AFTERMATH (as in, the fact the branches are different) is different, but the cause is NOT demonstrated. You don't create a consequence without its cause in the narrative, but the cause doesn't have to be spelled thoroughly -as long there are hints and evidence explaining what was the case-. And the flaw itself is the fact that there is no hint or evidence that point out the existence of that cause.
The game has always provided the cause and the consequence in tandem, although more often in a more or less subtile fashion (like the Russian causing the shift or Kurisu sending back Okarin in the beta world line). But in THAT specific plot part, with Leskinen changing his plans, there is none of that.

The fact you say "it is irrelevant" puts more emphasis to the issue at hand: the scenarists didn't give much thought about that plot point, and just rolled on with an absent plot device. And I've brought issues with that, hence the lack of evidence is detrimental for the narration because the only possibilities at hand are contradictory with the established facts and characterization in 0.
You are letting that slide by using a lopsided logic: "there is a result, so there is a cause, so it is irrelevant". Except when you dig further and you see that all possible causes are contradictory, this puts a severe issue in term of narrative consistency.

I've provided arguments and evidence of issues with the possible cause, and you have yet provided evidence that "there is a cause that explains everything correctly", which is normal since the author(s) themselves didn't bother going that in the first place. Using the argument that "there has to be, but the author didn't think of anything" just plainly proves the scenarist did a poor job at tying everything together.
This is going in circles, so I will cut this debate for good: you are basing all your logic on something extremely personal as "I say it isn't relevant to the current narrative, so I don't care", even though I did expose all the contradictory elements, as I care about general plot consistency when a story like that unfold itself. It is even more dubious to go any further since both sides concluded there is something missing and the fact it is missing resonates differently for both parties.
At this point, it isn't even a debate, it is 2 parallels opinions based on completely different appreciation of a given plot part. As such, there is no need to even discuss any further, especially it is about opinions. That's the very reason why I said multiple times I didn't intend to convince you, and I believe I explained pretty thoroughly my opinion on that matter. Likewise I never questioned your appreciation that "it isn't a problem". So it is about time to call it quit.
__________________

Last edited by Klashikari; 2018-05-27 at 09:56.
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote