As of now, What everyone thinks the Founders are, could be just propaganda and just a AI that has been controlling the ARK since its "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cqpaXhebA&feature=related", The Resistance is fueled by those of the Communist Revolution, The Founders are themed as Neo Conservatives who are discriminating (though i don't believe they are) against the refugees. These extremes dilute the actual story of Brink where it is about survival, the Security protect those that are here regardless of status while the Resistance tries to improve the life of others by sacrificing the comforts of everyone. That is why i put the scenario earlier, it will show where you stand, and in the ready and able video shows a plane in a barracks, which throws my original argument about no planes thus making the airport abandoned out the window. If anything the airport level will be a fight for the use of the airplane, Security want to keep the plane for later use while the Resistance want to use it to get off the ARK to the mainland.

Indeed. And also, I kind of feel like posting what I said from the other thread about Faction.




Take a deep breath. Let it out slowly. Breathe in through your nose, out through your mouth.

Now.



This question draws from opinion. We don't know if the Airport is completely abandoned or not. In the latest video, you can clearly see a plane that looks to be in perfect operating condition.
Is this the point of the mission? Security try to stop Resistance from stealing the plane? Who knows. Its all speculation.

Anything else I'd have to say is all subjective anyway.

Two things to remember here: exaggerated view of either side was intended, that's why the story is as indecisive as it is. also, remember that the story is mostly told through Instant Deep Context, which means that when this bad boy comes out we can discover what happened simply by paying close attention to the map. kind of like the amazing maps of Halo where every wall seemed to have a mystery waiting to be discovered. (before halo reach)

Indeed, my good sir.
I miss Halo 1&2 being in their prime. Good times.

Seems to me the answer is that the Powers That Be said no to anyone living there. And if a few people (not Resistance fighters but normal people) tried to move in or set up shop, seems to me the "cops" would move them out. And if a armed force moved in, well wouldn't that be a fight like we see in the vids?

So where exactly is this plot hole no one is talking about anymore?

This is another great point, especially in relation to the discussion between Mathonn and I. The the regular citizens of the Ark aren't living particularly comfortable at all, either. I'm sure its pretty crammed quarters in the nice part of town as well, albeit probably a little more cushy than Container City. Yet these people have not inhabited the Airport either. I would think because, like Makiaveli said, the authorities are not letting them.

So this also is a blow to the "The Founders aren't letting the refugees live in the Airport because they are elitists," argument as well, seeing as how it could be logically concluded that they aren't letting ANYONE live there.

possibly due to strategical interest that could give them more supplies or ship the rich people out of harms way. The fog of war will blind all, the truth will be seen when the game is released, Who the founders really are, what the container was really holding in container city, why the airport is truly "abandoned".

Your ignorance and assumptions are not my problem. I have never changed what I said, and again you are hooked on a definition of elite other than the one that I have clearly stated I am using.

Day one - understanding of logic: AND is a logical conjunction meaning both parts must be true to achieve a true conclusion, as in "A and B, therefore C" not "A, and therefore B". It is not an abbreviation for "and therefore", if I meant "and therefore" I would have said "and therefore". The "therefore" of the situation is "Therefore they don't allow the refugees to move into the airport."

It is not redundant as defined by "elitist". Now, if I had called them elitist snobs and then proceeded to continue on with my sentence that might well have been redundant.

I haven't had need of back peddling as you were coming at me with assumptions based on the ignorance of others you have come in contact with, and I merely stood the ground that I started on. I restated it, clarified it, and buried it in context that should have made it clear that I don't believe the definition of Elitist includes the idea that a "a typical elitist truly wouldn't want to be surrounded by what they felt was riff-raff. "

You're the one with the "giant logical leap you're taking in order to shore up your premise", assuming everyone must use the word AND incorrectly because some use the word incorrectly, as well as forcing characteristics upon "elitists" that are not neccesarily inherent by definition.

But it's nice to know that I can expect pointless confrontation because you don't know what the words that I'm using mean, have no interest in reading the definition I have given, and are too stubborn to accept that you opened with a misinterpretation of something because of your own failings.

I now apologize for any insult that may have made it's way into my response, but frankly you need to either do some backpeddling or walk away, because to challenge someone's argument based on your own assumption of ignorance is truly ignorant.

lol, u mad? I think, quite frankly, that I've hit the nail right on the head, judging by your desperate and frustrated reaction.

On a serious note, I've said nothing that would intimate that I don't understand the words you're using or that would be contrary to their definitions. Now go be silly somewhere else, son.

Really, because I'm fairly certain you're the one that assumed "and" to mean something other than what it actually means, and you continue to believe that being elitist automatically includes snobbery.

Not mad, but it's a rather interesting idea to think you must be right because somebody else is frustrated by you being wrong. Very circular.

Also, please refrain from the use of the word "son" when referring to me as I am not your child, nor is there anything here to suggest that you are in any means my senior, and thus it's just a little insulting.

First of all, though not definitively, elitism goes hand in hand with snobbery, and especially political elitism. Secondly, I'd bet my bottom dollar that I could read that sentence to 100 people and 90% of them would think that those two ideas were related.

So explain then, if the Founders are elitists, and if their snobbery is not related to that, and you were espousing two separate ideas with that statement, the point of even venturing their elitism/classism as an explanation.

I like how you guys just ignored my point and kept arguing.

What ever. Someone will take care of it.


Ontopic:
I might go about compiling a list of what we know so far specifically pertaining to mission and map content (and areas within said missions/maps).
Or I might not seeing as how we are about to get a crap-load of info. (at least I'm assuming so)

The last video seemed to be released for those starving for more content information.
I'm not starved of info, theres tons of it atm. Tons.

Two people arguing and ignoring other people's input? on the internet? no, I don't believe it :rolleyes:

and I'd definitely be in favour of such a list

Your point was what, allegedly? I'm so sorry that we didn't find whatever you posted so profound that it caused us to stop engaging in the discussion we were having.

I also don't see how the "on-topic" part of your above post was on topic at all. In case you had forgotten, the topic was why the Airport was not being used for residencies for the refugees. It was a plot question, not something to do with gameplay or missions or maps per se'. Mathonn and I were actually discussing the topic at hand. You are not.

Oh, no need to throw your attention of said argument towards me, my actual point was that we don't know enough of said story content to have said discussion. But then again this is my opinion we are referring to.
As for the on-topic potion of my last post: it is related to the Airport being mission content. I was simply thinking about said airport and its content and compiling a list of map features for future use. (after release)
The separation is the moral discussion and the mechanical. The post I had before, which you said you hadn't read, was on topic.

Thought the list would be quite nifty to have on hand since I'm a pretty competitive gamer, and I'm sure others are as well.




- :flame:

Edit: I also think there comes a point where a discussion can become inflammatory. I do think this has happened.

My thoughts....

The airport is the way it is because the airport is the way it is. The video game gods intended it to be that way. You all put too much thought in to things... :nerd: