Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History VideoGame / ShadowOfDestiny

Go To

[009] Truehare Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
All that has now been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact, my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But now it\\\'s all gone again, and I feel this is important information to understand the game. Which means that the Complexity Addiction entry is spreading misinformation, so to speak. At least, it\\\'s not taking the information I have already posted here (twice!) into consideration. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact, my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction is spreading misinformation, so to speak. At least, it\\\'s not taking the information I have already posted here (twice!) into consideration. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact, my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction is spreading misinformation, so to speak. At least, it\\\'s not taking the information I have already posted here (twice!) into consideration So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact, my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction is, right now, the only version available. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact, my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction entry is spreading misinformation. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
But, as I explained under that entry at the time, the game goes to great lengths to explain why it has to be this way. Eike can\'t just escape the killer by not going where he\'s going to be killed, because the Eike you\'re controlling is NOT the same Eike that\'s being killed. The death is destined to occur the way it happened the first time, and the Eike that is going to get killed can\'t do anything to avoid it. That\'s why the Eike that travels back in time has to find another way of preventing the death, be it by removing the killer from the scene, or appearing in disguise to his other self and handing him a hint written on a piece of paper - a scene which, incidentally, proves my point that here are two Eikes running around when you time travel.
to:
But, as I explained under that entry at the time, the game goes to great lengths to explain why it has to be this way. Eike can\\\'t just escape the killer by not going where he\\\'s going to be killed, because the Eike you\\\'re controlling is NOT the same Eike that\\\'s being killed. The death is destined to occur the way it happened the first time, and the Eike that is going to get killed can\\\'t do anything to avoid it. That\\\'s why the Eike that travels back in time has to find another way of preventing the death, be it by removing the killer from the scene, or appearing in disguise to his other self and handing him a hint written on a piece of paper - a scene which, incidentally, proves my point that there are two Eikes running around when you time travel.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact,my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction entry is spreading misinformation. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
But, as I explained under that entry at the time, the game goes to great lengths to explain why it has to be this way. Eike can\'t just escape the killer by not going where he\'s going to be killed, because the Eike you\'re controlling is NOT the same Eike that\'s being killed. The death is destined to occur the way it happened the first time, and the Eike that is going to get killed can\'t do anything to avoid it. That\'s why the Eike that travels back in time has to find another way of preventing the death, be it by removing the killer from the scene, or appearing in disguise to his other self and handing him a hint written on a piece of paper.
to:
But, as I explained under that entry at the time, the game goes to great lengths to explain why it has to be this way. Eike can\\\'t just escape the killer by not going where he\\\'s going to be killed, because the Eike you\\\'re controlling is NOT the same Eike that\\\'s being killed. The death is destined to occur the way it happened the first time, and the Eike that is going to get killed can\\\'t do anything to avoid it. That\\\'s why the Eike that travels back in time has to find another way of preventing the death, be it by removing the killer from the scene, or appearing in disguise to his other self and handing him a hint written on a piece of paper - a scene which, incidentally, proves my point that here are two Eikes running around when you time travel.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact,my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction entry is spreading misinformation. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact,my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction entry is spreading misinformation. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case? Should I just post my explanation (again) as a sub-point in the \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\'s a new \
to:
But now all that has been erased from the YMMV section, and there\\\'s a new \\\"Complexity Addiction\\\" entry in the main section describing all the \\\"hare-brained\\\" schemes Eike uses to prevent his own death, when he could just avoid going to the place where he\\\'s going to be killed... i.e., the same thing I already explained he HAS to do, according to the game\\\'s rules.

Now, I don\\\'t want to engage in an editing war. In fact,my YMMV entry had already been erased by someone who didn\\\'t like what I had to say, but the mods explained to me this was not OK, so I rewrote it and sent a message to the troper who had deleted it explaining the situation, and all was good for a couple of years. But I feel this is important information to understand the game - and the Complexity Addiction entry is spreading misinformation. So, can anyone tell me what I should do in this case?
Top