Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-679780-20170306231922/@comment-1669199-20170307115123

Ultrasonic9000 wrote: If I may present my viewpoint, I believe that fuzzing over the small details is not worth the effort. In my viewpoint, things just are the way they are. For example, as inconsistent as Lost Hex is, that is just how it is - why question how it works? After all, most of us are fans of a talking, walking blue hedgehog who can run really fast - where is the logic in this? Accepting that this is just how things processes makes it more bearable.

For this like plotholes and unexplained events then, I always say to myself "I guess something must have happened off-screen that lead to this". And so far, no plotholes have for me been entirely out of the realm of explanation.

A well-constructed story, whether it'd be something based in some semblance in reality like a crime/detective story set in a real world location, or a work of pure fantasy, has it's own form of internal logic. Take something like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter -- both of them have a set of rules that their respective stories follow, following a logic based on the elements within the story, such as magic and what role it plays within the societies of both series. It stands to reason that doing one thing that can only happen in these worlds causes another thing to happen, cause and effect. If you cast a fire spell, one can stand to assume that it will act just like real fire and affect it's targets accordingly, so if the fire DOESN'T burn it's target and no explanation that's consistent with the logic/rules of the story that would explain why what shouldn't have happened didn't, it'd be just the sort of thing that would invite speculation as to why it happened the way it did (example: there's a counter-spell that can protect the caster from any form of fire/extreme heat, but it isn't used in one instance, leaving how the target escaped the fire spell unscathed a mystery if not an outright impossibility). Therefore, if something happens within a story that goes against it's own internal logic, I think one does have a right to take issue with it since at that point the story is not following it's own logic.

Another example: Let's say for the sake of argument that Sonic is the fastest thing alive, as he is normally marketed as (whether or not he factually is is not the issue here.). He has no equals, and nothing can match his sheer speed. That is a defining trait of his character. Now place Sonic in a set of games that focuses on this particular aspect of his character, where the narrative, whether subtly or not so subtly makes it clear on several occasions that Sonic being the fastest thing alive is true and indisputable. In the latest game, a new character is introduced, and during an event in which the two characters race each other, the new character manages to finish first instead of Sonic. There was nothing to slow either Sonic or this other character down, nor was there anything to give either one any kind of advantage over the other, like one character being attacked during the race, or one character using something to amplify their natural abilities (in this case, the new character who naturally shouldn't be faster than Sonic), or something is being used to slow Sonic himself down and give his opponent a chance or straight-up advantage in speed which they otherwise would not possess in a fair competition. There was nothing to distract either of the characters from focusing on their task of outrunning the other person. Ergo, there should be absolutely nothing within the context of this moment in the game's plot, based on the internal logic these games presented which are born from the root that, "Sonic is the fastest thing alive", that should allow this new character to stand a chance of winning against Sonic in a straight-up race. Yet, in spite of this, they still win -- they still beat Sonic. And no explanation is given at any point that would adequately explain how this new character was able to defy the internal logic of these games' stories and therefore allow them to do what is literally impossible within the context of the story. Wouldn't even you take even a little issue with the story at this point since, for all intents and purposes, it ended up contradicting the very root on which it's story was based on, rather than just shrug it off as being "the way it is" and just try to accept it?

I understand your viewpoint, though, and I'm not saying or implying that you're wrong in thinking the way that you do. I'm just trying to explain why some people who analyze the nuances of a story do what they do and why they would feel it's important, because clearly they must care enough about the story on some level to try and find a way to make it work on a logical level when those stories end up presenting something that, at best, seems obscure on the surface, or a seemingly complete contradiction at the worst. Even if it's not a passion for the story itself or it's characters, it's most certainly a passion for good, well-structured storytelling.

My little tirades in those two walls of texts in my previous post? I wasn't really taking the issues surrounding the Hex World seriously at all (literally all my theories/arguments can be summed up as, "a wizard did it."), while the second issue revolving around the whole "amnesia" thing with the main cast being used to justify some inconsistent characterization of mostly just one character was just me being a sarcastic, facetious wisearse. I've actually given up trying to explain every little inconsistency I see in the Sonic series, because to me it's quite obvious SEGA/Sonic Team doesn't really care all that much about continuity. You'll find me in agreement with you that it really isn't worth stressing over every little thing about Sonic -- at least when it comes to the games, anyway.

Either way, I just wanted to toss in some extra thoughts of my own.