One issue with certain types of gore, of course, is that some people are genuinely squeamish to that type of gore, but not to others. People also happen to not like spoilers (some do, I suppose; I don't, but I digress). Suppose then that the type of gore that makes you squeamish (for argument's sake, pretend some type of gore makes you squeamish) is presented in a place where it is intertwined with the story. You naturally want to know what type of gore is there, but if you try to find that information you'll naturally find information about the story as well. Then, how are you to know what type of gore you'll see in the game? Listing every type of violence and gore and scene that might make some feel a bit uneasy is a bit excessive.
Still, I stand by the previous points I've made.
----
Pincho, let me discuss something with you briefly. Assume that no one else has posted, that it's just us in this thread, and one neutral party. Let's go on to say that the neutral party brought up the "seven plots" thing.
We'll fast forward now to this portion of your comment:
Quote: "Man vs man isn't a story"
Keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation, so the intentions of others does not apply in my following comment.
If I said "View 'man vs man' and the other six 'plots' not as plots, but as 'abbreviated views,' so to speak. The intention here appears to be to summarize and condense so one does not have to utter an entire story. That is, 'man vs man' and the other 'plots' are more like 'story types.' These might be viewed as basic building blocks which can combine to represent a certain type of sequence of events, all relating to an overall goal, or 'fine summary,'" what would your issue be with that?
By basic building blocks, I mean that in much the same way that NAND gates can be used to represent pretty much all logic. (You can use NAND gates to build OR gates, XOR gates, AND gates, etc. All of these can be combined together to build a microprocessor. etc, etc.)
Disclaimer: I did not double check this somewhat old knowledge of mine before posting. If you have an issue with it, please provide a citation to a reliable article. I'm assuming we don't need to do that though.
Also, keep in mind, communication is two ways. If your ideas are as great as you say they are, the issue isn't necessarily that people are dense, but that you possibly aren't making yourself very clear. In your mind, you have all sorts of information and ideas floating around, and just general knowledge that builds it all up. Your explanations don't appear to take into account that sometimes things need to be explained in different ways. So far, all of your explanation attempts appear to have failed. Every time you make a post, you're adding a
little bit more information. However, you're not explaining the full picture.
To make an analogy: it's sort of like painting Mona Lisa's nose, and expecting everyone to understand that you've painted the rest of the Mona Lisa (or at least a sizable portion of it). Likewise, your statements (by themselves) don't make much sense to those reading them. The reason for this is simply that there's not enough information, and/or the information isn't ordered very well. (Though, I'm sure you'll suggest there are other reasons for it as well.)
I will not reply to responses questioning the
statements above unless I view your criticism(s) as legitimate and presented in the form of positive feedback. Simply saying "You're wrong" (or variants thereof) will get us nowhere.
However, I would appreciate a reply to the
questions I posed above. (Including the statements which imply a response is requested.)
Errata: There are no doubt numerous errors in my post. However, my overall idea is there and easy to interpret. (I would appreciate multiple non-involved parties commenting that they understood what I said here as well.)
Now then, I've spent far too much time on this post. Hopefully it doesn't go unnoticed like the others.
