So I recently learned something about myself...

CoffeeHorse said:

I didn't even know the PS4 comes with a mic, so I am truly out of the loop on this one.

Click to expand...

It does, but it's a small thing that I wouldn't be surprised if most people missed.

To make a long story short, P.T., if you forgot, is a demo for what was going to be a Silent Hill game. Kojima and Guillermo del Toro were to work on it.

The thing about this demo is TO THIS DAY we don't know exactly how to beat it. We have a pretty clear idea on what to do till about the end, then you have to do seemingly random stuff to trigger a phone call that ends the demo. The biggest idea we have to beat the demo is if you happen to have a microphone on during play (AKA most likely ONLY if you are streaming the thing) and say certain words it MIGHT trigger the last phone call.

I've never been a big fan of Kojima's writing since Metal Gear Solid 2, and as neat as puzzles that require you to think outside the box. (Like how in Metal Gear Solid 1 you had to get a frequency to call via looking at the back of the CD case for the game) I voiced how I was weary about the upcoming game, as I don't really care for how that type of puzzle can lock people out of completing it.

As such I made mention that they clearly designed it in such a way that only streamers would likely beat it since they'd be actually using a mic, and how if you were just messing around you could spend hours trying to beat it, but couldn't because you wouldn't think to use a mic just randomly in a demo like this.

Basically since my brain is calculating the possible issues with doing a puzzle in such a way, and how all of this gets solved if you just you know. NOT MAKE PUZZLES LIKE THAT.

I voiced I was hoping we didn't have more puzzles like that in the main game. (which we'll never know now), and boy did people give me crap for that.

A lot of pushback I got was basically along the lines of: "But the PS4 comes with a mic, so there isn't a problem."

No amount of me trying to point out how if you were just playing it alone would indicate you probably wouldn't be using that mic. Or even pointing out that mics can be damaged, or you very well might not have one anymore as it got broken or something seemed to matter to anyone.

I just kept being told that it didn't matter. Basically from what I can gather since it was such a small issue, people just waved it off. Which fine fair enough, but that doesn't MAGICALLY mean I'm going to stop feeling the way I do. I eventually went on a rant about how I didn't expect people to follow my lead, or feel the same way, but as long as the puzzle couldn't be completed without a microphone, I just wasn't a fan of it.

The next post was and I quote: "But the PS4 Comes with a mic!" To which a LOT of people thumbed up that post, and yes I'm still bitter about it today.

Like I'm sorry but I don't get it. Why does the fact it comes with a mic solve the ******* problem to you? I'm talking about how -I- feel. I'm sorry I can't go into my brain and flip a switch and suddenly stop caring about this.

I feel vindicated too, as I looked around the web, and YEP. Just as I said, there were people who didn't have a mic and were miffed that they basically couldn't beat the demo. The sliver lining I guess is since it was just a videogame they sorta just shrugged it off, said whatever, and moved on.

But frankly I'm still sitting here going: "And that wouldn't have been an issue if we just didn't make a puzzle like that in the first place."

That would've ticked me off, too. I think the only time I ever used a mic for any game was in the old Trace Memory DS game, but I think that one mentioned you can use the mic and other non-conventional methods to solve puzzles. I would never in a million years think to use a mic for a solo PS game, nvm a demo.

MEDdMI said:

That would've ticked me off, too. I think the only time I ever used a mic for any game was in the old Trace Memory DS game, but I think that one mentioned you can use the mic and other non-conventional methods to solve puzzles. I would never in a million years think to use a mic for a solo PS game, nvm a demo.

Click to expand...

Yeah something like that is different because it's literally built INTO the system, and the game hints at you using it.

This was a case where the demo purposely didn't even hint at it, because they wanted it to take as long as possible to solve, and failed because someone streamed it and stumbled upon the ending like a day later.

Had some dreams last night that played out as they normally do. This one was about me possibly going on a field trip with people, looking for clothing that would magically alter the person who wore it, and eventually I remember going to a food truck and buying a water bottle that for some reason came with a free wish. What I mean by 'as they normally do" is the entire time I knew I was dreaming, which is the default for me in my dreams. If I'm ever blocked by an obstacle, or need to make a path, I can reach over to a wall, slide down a panel, type in a code or flip a switch and things will move/open for me. Or I'll just fly away or phase through a wall.

I'm typing this here, because I've always wondered what I did that started me to lucid dream all the time and why Nightmares stopped when I was like five, and I think I have a theory. It's kinda the same reason I don't get motion sickness at all when doing VR games.

It's because of that thing my brain does when it's trying to log and process ALL the information. Or to be more specific in this case. It freaking recognizes that I'm not feeling any wind/ air displacement on my body. If I'm in a cold or hot environment, my brain realizes we aren't feeling those effects on our skin. If in water it recognizes there isn't any wetness.

I think I lucid dream because my brain can't re-create the world 1:1 and keeps realizing what it's seeing can't be real. >_>

That makes a lot of sense. It's recommended that people who want to try lucid dreaming should get in the habit of doing reality checks, but your brain is already doing that intuitively. Any missing detail gets flagged immediately.

This is so fascinating.

So I kinda feel like I have a sorta update to this.

I will apologize now. No I don't know what part of the spectrum I might be on. To get that worked out basically is going to cost money I don't have. (especially right now with me STILL paying recovery fees for getting my leg broken in that accident. I'm still waiting for the insurance claim to settle.) So paired with all of that, and the simple fact that I don't really see what knowing exactly what I might have will really help.

Like if I went and they said: "Oh yeah you're -blank-" what would that really benefit?

That being said I think I have a better way to put all this.

I'm going to again use the My Little Pony Episode "Made in Manehatten"

I mentioned before about the detail I got hung up on. Where they needed help putting on the show/getting the stage ready, and how I asked why Applejack didn't call in any family members.

So I'm not sure if this got across, and I've not phrased it this way because I kinda feel it makes me sound like I'm all... Like best I can put it is it makes me feel like I'm praising how smart I am or something. I don't think I'm that great. Or to put it another way. I don't want to come off as having an ego, so I'm constantly trying to keep myself in check.

So to reiterate, I asked the question of why Applejack didn't ask her family for help.

Now the reason as I've stated is because:

I knew Applejack had family in Manehatten

I knew the Apple family preached helping each other out.

I concluded that it was incredibly likely Applejack knew where her family was in Manehatten, and would have means of contacting them.

Now. All of this TO ME is super obvious. Like PAINFULLY so.

Not only that but I have NO INFORMATION that would suggest I'm wrong about ANY of those three points.

Therefore the fact that Applejack DIDN'T ask her family for help. Is not only VERY NOTICABLE, but it's actually DISTRACTING.

Of course when I brought this point up I was told: "The episode didn't have time to address that, that's why it wasn't brought up"

THAT is an EXCUSE and NOT in fact an answer.

Basically If I was somehow able to manifest as a pony into that world, and I walked up to Applejack and asked her point blank: "Hey. Why didn't you ask your family to help out." I'm looking to see what answer she'd have given me. Because obviously she's not going to say: "Well the show writers didn't have time for that." Because as far as all the information we have suggests. Applejack doesn't know she's in a cartoon. She thinks she's a real pony in a real world.

It's beginning to sink in that for other people. I guess this detail just isn't really bothersome to them. It's easily overlooked.

Yet as I have just said. To me? SUPER DAMN DISTRACTING. To the point that I can't unsee it the second I start watching the episode. I just immediately am reminded that there is this BIG OBVIOUS FLAW in the storytelling, that for some reason most people either don't care about, or simply don't think is worth focusing on.

But again, since it's so distracting to me. I am unable to NOT focus on it.

It'd be like if a Fire Truck crashed into your living room with it's sirens blaring, and you were told to "Just ignore it."

I'd imagine that'd be a bit difficult.

It's usually at this point that I have people telling me the "The episode didn't have time to address it so that's the answer. Case closed"

And that always makes it feel like there is this hidden addition that says: "So you should stop focusing on it" Or I get told I'm: "Thinking too hard about things."

This frustrates me, because again. To me everything is just so incredibly obvious, that I don't know what the hell they mean by "Looking too hard into things." Like I'm literally just pointing out the super obvious.

It also feels a lot like people are silently saying that I'm looking at things the wrong way. Or me having this stance is WRONG.

But basically. "The show didn't have time to address it" Does NOT in fact make any of this:

I knew Applejack had family in Manehatten

I knew the Apple family preached helping each other out.

I concluded that it was incredibly likely Applejack knew where her family was in Manehatten, and would have means of contacting them.

False. Like nothing I'm saying here is incorrect according to the information I have. Therefore, my inquiry is VALID. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about, and something that doesn't have a proper answer. Only an excuse.

Yet people will speak to me like I'm being an idiot, and it gets very VERY frustrating.

Oh, the applejack thing again. *cartoonishly exasperated sigh*

J/k man, I remember way back on the old board, when you first raised how much this bothered you. And to be honest... I can't remember not falling into the camp of the rest of allsparkle who seemed to perpetually give you the right answer that you weren't looking for. That, the episode wasn't about that. So that's why it wasn't in the episode. The answer you want to be told is some sort of in Canon alt-history fanfic. And none of us can really do that for you and get it 100% accurate to what you want it to be. So, the only suggestion that makes sense to me at this point would be to tell you to write your own interquel episode fanfic dealing with Applejack's mainhatten adventure where she runs around tracking down her family, but then ultimately nothing comes of it because they weren't in the actual episode...


Heh, maybe that's the real answer to your question, she didn't do it because she knew they were all jerks. Lol.

They were on vacation. They totally would have helped, but they weren't even there.

Yeah how ironic was it that her east coast relatives packed up and went to go visit ponyville at the exact time she came to town. ... likely might have even passed each other's train

When I first brought it up, it was for fun. I am able to accept that it wasn't brought up in the episode because of lack of time, or even that wasn't what the writers wanted to focus on.

It's not just about the answer, it's about the fact that I don't feel I should be told not to point the flaw out in the first place.

You may remember someone telling me the "It's because the episode didn't have time to address that and it wasn't about that anyway" and as if this carried some rule that because of that. I should just ignore it.

But as I'm trying to get across. It's a super obvious flaw, and distracting. I can't just 'ignore it'

I also don't feel that pointing it out is wrong, but that's the impression that I get. Everyone just talks to me again like I'm looking too much into things or I'm complicating things somehow, and I'm just sitting here going: "I mean it's so obvious that Applejack's first move would have been to ask her family for help, and yet she never even attempts it. How is that not a plot hole?"

Like Destron right now is saying that people were giving me "The right answer I wasn't looking for" I'm confused. Why is "The writers didn't have time to address that, or it's not what the writers were going for" A right answer?

It feels like that answer is implying that what I'm pointing out is not a flaw, or that information just fixes the issue, when in fact it so obviously does NOT.

To be a little blunt here. Let's put that up against my points.

I knew Applejack had family in Manehatten

Click to expand...

That is still absolutely true. "The writers didn't have time to address it, or it's not what the writers were going for" Doesn't somehow make this point false, or like unimportant or something. It's a fact that I have no information to suggest otherwise.

I knew the Apple family preached helping each other out.

Click to expand...

This is also still true and not made a null point or something by that "Didn't have time" stuff.

I concluded that it was incredibly likely Applejack knew where her family was in Manehatten, and would have means of contacting them.

Click to expand...

This again is still true. The point of "It's not blah blah blah" doesn't turn this into a falsehood. Therefore I'm still reaching the same conclusion:

Applejack really SHOULD have been shown addressing this. It's a very obvious flaw of the episode.

It's not about answering the question, it's about accepting that the question is worth asking. It's a point worth keeping in mind as a FLAW in the writing.

From my perspective. There is nothing wrong with me recognizing that there was a mistake made here. What frustrates me is when I'm told that "No it's not a mistake. This is how the industry works. You need to stop worrying about stuff like that."

But I'm not being given any information that would suggest WHY I shouldn't. Like I could bring up an entire other list about why it's good to keep character writing consistent, and I again have no information to suggest otherwise.

At the end of the day I just wanted people to understand WHY I'm looking at it the way I am. WHY I'm pointing it out and WHY I don't feel it's wrong for me to do so. You don't HAVE to agree with it, but I always felt if I gave examples, or If I broke it down enough, someone would look at it and go along the lines of: "Oh hey, I see what is causing you to reach that conclusion. (And maybe even adding: I don't think it's worth bothering with myself, but I see why you are addressing it.")

The way it has always felt is that because there is this meta answer, then that means what I'm pointing out is not important, or that I'm just in the wrong for pointing it out. That's frustrating when I don't have any information that suggests otherwise to me.

I once mentioned before that in order to get me to change my mind is to change the data in one of my points.

If someone could in fact point out either evidence that Applejack didn't know where her family was in Manehatten, or a really good reason as to why she wouldn't. Then I'd have information that would change one of my points there to a negative, and perhaps give me the information that suggests the reason she didn't call her family is NOT in fact a flaw, or oversight.

But I don't have that, so it is. Therefore I'm just going to keep pointing out: "So yeah that's an obvious flaw that I wish the writers addressed."

Then I get frustrated because someone will go: "VM we told you. It was due to lack of time. That's your answer. It's not a plot hole or flaw."

When nothing I'm being given comes anywhere close to explaining WHY it's not a flaw for plot hole.

I'm rambling now and I don't know if this is actually helping people understand how my brain works, or why I get caught up on these smaller details.

Here's the thing, you've gotten focused on a problem that doesn't really exist. Okay, a few problems, tbf.
A. Stating that a random thing you thought of, that didn't happen, but you think should have... is not an actual problem with the episode.
B. People telling you that obviously there are ooc reasons for it, not being a good enough answer for you... is also not an actual problem with the episode.
C. The episode, is not asking you to fix it, plot holes are not that bad... and this isn't even a plot hole.. because what you think should have happened is extremely tangential to the plot... this isn't really evan an applejack episode.

I went and asked Google.

In "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic," Applejack's reason for not directly asking her family for help in Manehattan isn't explicitly stated in the show, but her character traits and previous behaviors offer some insight. Applejack is known for her independence and strong work ethic, often preferring to tackle problems on her own. She also values self-reliance and a strong sense of personal responsibility, as seen in "Applebuck Season" where she initially refuses help with the apple harvest, despite her brother Big McIntosh's injury.
It's possible that Applejack felt she should handle the situation in Manehattan independently because she was a long way from home and didn't want to burden her family with her problems. Alternatively, she might have believed she could solve the issue on her own, reflecting her character's tendency to be resourceful and proactive.
While the show doesn't explicitly mention a specific reason, her character traits offer the most likely explanations for why she didn't reach out to her family for assistance in Manehattan.

So there you have it. Sometimes, you gotta do a little critical thinking and ponder the contextual clues. Ultimately, it's on you to decide if the character is written well enough that perhaps the writer deemed it unimportant to the plot of a rarity episode, to spend time on an unnecessary applejack adventure. Maybe, it's a result of serial storytelling bumping up against episodic plots... since you can't put everything in 22 minutes... you're going to have to build off of what came before.

Applejack sure does have a stubborn streak... something I think we can both admit to sharing.

Okay I think I have a better way to explain it. I'm sorry but I'm just trying to get across why this is such a huge thing for me.

THIS is the data I have:

I knew Applejack had family in Manehatten

I knew the Apple family preached helping each other out.

I concluded that it was incredibly likely Applejack knew where her family was in Manehatten, and would have means of contacting them.

Click to expand...

As I've stated, this is all true. I have no data that suggests it's NOT true. Therefore I keep concluding that it's a mistake/plot hole/ whatever or however we want to classify it. The data suggests that it should be addressed.

To use a recent thing said and please don't think I mean to offend you Destron.

A. Stating that a random thing you thought of, that didn't happen, but you think should have... is not an actual problem with the episode.

Click to expand...

Does that statement change any of the three points up there? Does it change that data at all? Does it give any insight as to why I should not consider that data.

It does not.

Therefore the conclusion remains the same. The data I have suggests that the first thing Applejack SHOULD HAVE DONE was contact her family for help. It's the most logical thing to do in that situation. The data just flat out states that yes. That is what should have happened. I have NO DATA to suggest otherwise.

Therefore yes it IS a problem with the episode. Because nothing I have makes sense to suggest otherwise. It's a plot hole. Nothing I'm being given suggests otherwise.

In "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic," Applejack's reason for not directly asking her family for help in Manehattan isn't explicitly stated in the show, but her character traits and previous behaviors offer some insight. Applejack is known for her independence and strong work ethic, often preferring to tackle problems on her own. She also values self-reliance and a strong sense of personal responsibility, as seen in "Applebuck Season" where she initially refuses help with the apple harvest, despite her brother Big McIntosh's injury.
It's possible that Applejack felt she should handle the situation in Manehattan independently because she was a long way from home and didn't want to burden her family with her problems. Alternatively, she might have believed she could solve the issue on her own, reflecting her character's tendency to be resourceful and proactive.
While the show doesn't explicitly mention a specific reason, her character traits offer the most likely explanations for why she didn't reach out to her family for assistance in Manehattan.

Click to expand...

If my memory serves me correctly. They LITERALLY in the episode are like: "We're going to need help with this" and actively try to GET said help. Applejack is well aware they need help and can't do it on their own. So please explain to me how it makes any sense for her to STILL not go ask her family for help?

The data I have still suggests that the most logical outcome is that she should have done that right away. I have nothing to suggest otherwise, therefore I'm hung up on it.

From my perspective it's very obvious, and to basically wave it away with a "Well the episode couldn't-" That's ignoring the data I've presented, and I can't think of any good reason you should DO that. And since to me the Data is very in your face obvious and distracting.

Here I am. I'm noticing something that I can ONLY see as a flaw, and am being told it's NOT in fact a flaw. But from where I'm sitting, I'm being given no logical data on why it should not be considered a flaw.

Now I GET that this won't bother other people. I GET IT. But it DOES bother me specifically, and I don't feel like I'm in the wrong for classifying it as a mistake.

I do get it. A plot hole is still a plot hole no matter the production reasons for it. I see it with movies all the time. There's this thing that seems like it's a plot hole, and it turns out that the editors removed a scene but failed to remove all references to it. And I can read the script and see how the story they wrote actually totally works. That's cool and all, but the finished product still is what it is. I can rewatch the movie knowing what's missing and understanding how the story was intended to flow, but the experience is still broken.

As an AJ is best pony brony... it behooves me to inform you that my dear sweet Applejack, is not in fact, logical. She is a silly pony. There's even a song... sometimes when we encounter fiction it important to remember, none of these characters are 'us' they do not have to act as we would, or even think like we would... that's often the entire point of the experience.
So you keep bringing up the data you have and that nothing in the episode or what anyone tells you outside of the episode changes that data... okay fine, but you aren't in the episode either. So aj doesn't math your sweet data the same way.


You might just have to let this one go...

Sorry I fell into the same trap I always fall into when I do this. Okay I'm going to take a step back and make something VERY VERY CLEAR.

My goal IS NOT TO GET AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHY APPLEJACK DIDN'T CALL HER FAMILY.

I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

My goal is to defend the reason I asked the question in the first place.

From where I'm sitting, not only is this a plot hole, it's a BIG ONE. It very obviously makes NO SENSE and thus should have been corrected.

Yes I get the reasons WHY it exists, but that doesn't magically wave away the fact that it is INDEED a plot hole.

I'm getting frustrated because I have ALL THIS DATA that suggests why it's a mistake.

I'm being given very little that explains why everyone is saying it's NOT a plot hole, and most of that I can easily debunk with casual observation.

Look I need you to understand. Things like:

"Applejack is a silly pony, and I'm basically saying that she likely just didn't think to ask her family for help"

Click to expand...

And I'm just looking at this and my brain is going:

"Okay but if we needed to like move into a new house, and needed help. We clearly know that we have brothers and friends who are able and likely will help with perhaps the bare minimum of a pizza party as a reward."

"That's logical, and most likely the FIRST THING we'd try."

"To compare this to the episode. We know that Applejack is big on family and helping out family. She's also known for being willing to help out her friends. While yes she was stubborn in the past, that was season 1. This is season FIVE. We also recognize that they liked to have the characters re-learn lessons they should know already. However as one person has stated. This ISN'T an Applejack episode. Therefore the writers were NOT trying to write Applejack learning this lesson. THEREFORE when the character known as Applejack is placed into this particular situation, it's logical and REASONABLE to believe that since she doesn't know any friends in the area, it's VERY REASONABLE to believe she'd go ask family. Especally given the circumstances. This is logically the first thing Applejack would try given EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT HER."

So here I come with all this data, running it through logic scans, looking for anything that I might be incorrect on, and finding nothing. Satisfied, I go: "Okay so yeah sucks that made a mistake like that."

And I'm given: "Well it's not a mistake. The episode just didn't have time to address that."

My brain: "We don't understand how that works. We're still thinking about the logic of what the majority of people would do if they needed to move. You are suggesting we wouldn't call our family or friends first to help out. That doesn't compute. The inhabitants of this world do not think of themselves in a cartoon. (Pinkie is a possible exception) Therefore you can't use the excuse "There was no time" In reality that'd never happen. When asked why I didn't ask my friends or family to move. I wouldn't say: "Well the writers of my life didn't have time to implement that." What sense does that make?"

"Applejack is a silly pony. Maybe she just didn't think of it."

My brain: "First off "Applejack is a silly pony we're pretty sure the data we have suggest it's a fan song. Not from the actual show, or if it IS, it's from a previous generation and NOT about this Applejack. The data we have on Applejack suggests she wouldn't do something that, for lack of a better term, stupid.

This would be like if in the moving scenario, instead of asking our family or friends for help. We went out on the street and asked random strangers to please help us move. What bleeping sense does that make?"

My brain: "Everything we know about Applejack suggests she would seek out the aid of her family given the dire circumstances. We have no data that suggests she wouldn't. Therefore we can only classify this as a major plot hole."

And just a minor thing to add. I'm a writer and it's VERY IMPORTANT to me to keep character consistency. So things like this are VERY easy for me to pick up on, ON TOP of just this is how my brain compiles data.

This is also usually where I get someone going: "Man you are looking WAY TO HARD into this."

Casual observation. It all just seems so obvious to me, that I can't figure out why everyone is going: "Yeah but it's not a plot hole"

If you want me to accept this isn't a problem with the episode, I need your page of data to understand why. Because from where I'm sitting I have ALL THIS to back me up, and I can't see any errors in the code.

You might just have to come to terms with people without data based braining being in creative control of things you watch, and learn to cut them some slack then.