[001]
69.172.221.8
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Also, Lady Comstock\'s name started with \
to:
Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.
Yes, these assumptions ended up being wrong, but all plots with a mystery invite guessing. The problem is in the ambiguity. From ambiguity comes misunderstanding. Sure you could say there was nothing overtly romantic in their interactions, but I\\\'d argue that there was nothing paternal in them either. It was all pretty much entirely neutral meaning you could draw any number of conclusions from it and the fact that anyone could get the idea at all is where the fumble lies.
So no, I don\\\'t buy full responsibility being on us. As I said there are multiple things they could have done to make this less awkward while still keeping their precious twist intact.
In addition, we already know this game was rewritten. Perhaps several times. Combine that fact with the What the Hell Costume Department aspect and any number of odd possibilities pop up. Comstock originally looked way different. Nothing like any of the Bookers we saw in the past. Maybe he wasn\\\'t always Booker in the story. Maybe Elizabeth wasn\\\'t always his daughter. We don\\\'t know.
This story isn\\\'t invulnerable to plot problems. Outright flirting isn\\\'t necessary for a relationship writing fumble. All it takes is enough people getting the wrong idea. I think dismissing people who misunderstood a plot as having \\\"shipping goggles\\\" is pretty darn petty. It writes off their opinions as not valid and has an obvious, glaring negative connotation.
I\\\'m not a shipper. I don\\\'t care who ends up with who. I just see a lot of plots. This one felt odd to me. Like something was just off center.
I don\\\'t think it\\\'s unreasonable for a trope to be put up to mark something so many people misunderstood. It doesn\\\'t take anything away from the game. But pretending like it never happened doesn\\\'t serve anything either.
Yes, these assumptions ended up being wrong, but all plots with a mystery invite guessing. The problem is in the ambiguity. From ambiguity comes misunderstanding. Sure you could say there was nothing overtly romantic in their interactions, but I\\\'d argue that there was nothing paternal in them either. It was all pretty much entirely neutral meaning you could draw any number of conclusions from it and the fact that anyone could get the idea at all is where the fumble lies.
So no, I don\\\'t buy full responsibility being on us. As I said there are multiple things they could have done to make this less awkward while still keeping their precious twist intact.
In addition, we already know this game was rewritten. Perhaps several times. Combine that fact with the What the Hell Costume Department aspect and any number of odd possibilities pop up. Comstock originally looked way different. Nothing like any of the Bookers we saw in the past. Maybe he wasn\\\'t always Booker in the story. Maybe Elizabeth wasn\\\'t always his daughter. We don\\\'t know.
This story isn\\\'t invulnerable to plot problems. Outright flirting isn\\\'t necessary for a relationship writing fumble. All it takes is enough people getting the wrong idea. I think dismissing people who misunderstood a plot as having \\\"shipping goggles\\\" is pretty darn petty. It writes off their opinions as not valid and has an obvious, glaring negative connotation.
I\\\'m not a shipper. I don\\\'t care who ends up with who. I just see a lot of plots. This one felt odd to me. Like something was just off center.
I don\\\'t think it\\\'s unreasonable for a trope to be put up to mark something so many people misunderstood. It doesn\\\'t take anything away from the game. But pretending like it never happened doesn\\\'t serve anything either.
