Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8817782" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, they wouldn't be objective. Because objective opinions do not exist. They are giving reasons, and that is WONDERFUL. By all the gods above and below I WISH I was dealing with someone who could give solid, backed-up reasons X, Y, and Z.Because, again, you know why I have been "fighting" people who say the monster isn't badly designed? Because those people have claimed, in no particular order:It isn't badly designed because I changed the design.It isn't badly designed because it is a fantasy creature, and you can't have a badly designed fantasy creature, because they don't follow logical rules.It isn't badly designed because art can't tell you much about a creature.It isn't badly designed because the source material isn't reliable.None of those reasons address anything I said. It would be like saying Overwatch is a better designed game because it was made by Blizzard. That has nothing to do with the design of the game, that is just who designed it. If people had reasons, I could discuss those reasons, and in fact I HAVE discussed reasons with people. See my discussion with Dannyalcatraz where I discussed how an action pose would have been a better choice if the creature was meant to be amorphous, and gave examples.You however and Gammadoodler have not done that. You have attacked me, not my arguments, or made bizarre claims like how dictionary art cannot inform someone.Ever hear of the Fallacy Fallacy, oh wait, same one. Weird how that one can cut both ways,How in the world is giving it shapeshifting legs not altering its biology?Also, did I ever say word one in my discussion on why it was a bad design about its stats? Its stats don't matter. They could have any stats at all, and it wouldn't change how bad the design was, because a better designed monster with the same stats would be better.Also, who cares about it being domesticated? I never said anything about domestication at any point in time. It has nothing to do with my point at all. It seems bizzare to bring up, and frankly, I don't even know what you are talking about. Is it the bizzarre "but they could be wheels" argument? You realize I never responded to that because reducing a monster to the role of an inanimate object... really just speaks to how poorly designed the monster was to begin with. At that point you could just make it an animated chariot, which is a superior design because it no longer has to do anything except be a wheel, which is what the creature was designed to look like.I am not trying to say my opinion is objectively correct, because objectively correct opinions do not exist.I am not trying to say my opinion is objectively correct, because objectively correct opinions do not exist.I am not trying to say my opinion is objectively correct, because objectively correct opinions do not exist.I am not trying to say my opinion is objectively correct, because objectively correct opinions do not exist.I am not trying to say my opinion is objectively correct, because objectively correct opinions do not exist.I am not trying to say my opinion is objectively correct, because objectively correct opinions do not exist.How many times do I have to repeat myself before you stop putting words in my mouth?</blockquote>

Verification