Re: PLURK PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:21 pm (UTC)(link)
But why u so butthurt tho?

Re: MASK OR MENACE

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:45 pm (UTC)(link)
what a surprise

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:45 pm (UTC)(link)
and yet stucky is so perfect and glorious. sure.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:55 pm (UTC)(link)
i dont ship stucky either. that pairing is also awful.

+1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:55 pm (UTC)(link)
lmao, so many butthurt shitty writers in this thread.

Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
quiet/quite

Re: ITT: Writing Pet Peeve

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 03:59 pm (UTC)(link)
"i could care less"

ITT: financially unsavvy whiteknights

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:03 pm (UTC)(link)

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:05 pm (UTC)(link)
No, you substitute to give information. That is the entire reason. It isn't to avoid reptitiveness like this entire thread seems to think.

Eighteen year old Sebatian Shore enters the room. The engineer takes out his tools, tinkering with his new project until-- "Mr. Shore, your first meeting has arrived."

In two sentences you know the character's age, their job, and that they are most likely a high level business man since he has an assistant. Writing techniques are NEVER just for avoiding repetitiveness because being clear is always the best way to go.

And actually plenty of people use the subtitution technique depending on the genre. But you tend to see it most in newspapers because you have to say a lot within a strict word count. You won't notice published author's doing substitution much because they have the page space to develop the story.

Unless you want super long tags or you're trying to hide something about your character including something about then that can be noticed in their actions is good writing. You read it everyday. Published authors are just sneakier about it.

Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:06 pm (UTC)(link)
you say that like rhodey doesn't love him

Re: ITT: financially unsavvy whiteknights

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:08 pm (UTC)(link)
ok

+100

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:09 pm (UTC)(link)
FINALLY someone gets the point.

(frozen comment) Re: da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:09 pm (UTC)(link)
yeah you totally sound like a da

every response just makes this game look wankier and wankier and i'm glad because the kind of people who've responded deserve to have their hopes go up in a dumpster fire. better games have sunk for worse reasons (i'd talk about the period game that sunk just a few months ago, but I don't to lose you with "outdated references")

which is funny because this game is outdated, it's literally a throwback to 2013 when people still cared about flight rising and games were populous enough that a stupid little one like this would still have a place. now it's got about as much chance of succeeding as the legion, which in case you haven't noticed is struggling pretty hard (or is a game that launched six months ago also too outdated for your goldfish memory?)

but by all means, keep sperging. i love nothing more than to see a game collapse under its own wank before it even opens

(frozen comment) Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
yeah but this one deserves to die

Re: ITT: financially unsavvy whiteknights

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
"weh weh weh, i was totally shot down. it must all be one guy, and a whiteknight!"

Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I checked out by the second he in the first one and the second james in the second one.

the structure in this is horrible since it's basically the ben stein of descriptions in general.

(frozen comment) Re: DRAGON CALLED

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:12 pm (UTC)(link)
the spergery in this thread proves it's not even remotely innocent

i pity anyone who apps to this game (assuming it makes it to opening) because it sounds like it's made up entirely of handflapping babes of the teat

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:12 pm (UTC)(link)
you say that but kylo ren and finn interactions say differently

(frozen comment) Re: DRAGON CALLED

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:14 pm (UTC)(link)
or it won't even make it to opening day or it'll open and close in the same month

i'm predicting the latter scenario personally, the mods seem determined enough in their obnoxious autistic way to force the game open even under a cloud of wank but i can't see anyone enjoying playing with them for long

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:15 pm (UTC)(link)
so is bruce/nat but fandom torpedoed that in a hurry

it'll be quietly abandoned and buried like the cat litter it is

(frozen comment) Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:17 pm (UTC)(link)
nah certain games just deserve to be sunk in harbor and this one is definitely one of them, any wank that might arise from it opening successfully wouldn't be worth the inevitable smugness of the mods

better for it to die like sunset resort and be a warning against mod hubris

(frozen comment) Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:19 pm (UTC)(link)
ok, but why? bring the fucking deets already, or this is just deetless wank that's against the rules.

(frozen comment) Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:19 pm (UTC)(link)
yeah but sadly for you no one is wanking on it for "just existing"

we're wanking on it for all the problem players in the wings, the thick-skulled mods who think chimping out here will solve their problems and the premise in general which just seems like a throwback to an earlier time in dwrp that doesn't have much chance of flying today

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:20 pm (UTC)(link)
tumblr ---------------- >

(frozen comment) Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-05-09 04:21 pm (UTC)(link)
nobody has brought any deets, though.