Pictomancer's effects need some more work

[Yshnal]

Firstof all, thank you for continuing to prove my original point about you taking it seriously despite your initial denial of doing so. "Casual interactions," right. The longer you drag this on, the clearer it becomes that your intent was never to just "add something" so much as try to overtly shut down speculation or perceived besmirchment of Pictomancer. You keep desperately trying to bring the argument being about Pictomancer as a whole (from your very first reply here) being entirely influenced by Artist's mere existence when that was never the primary point, and then continue to engage in mental gymnastics and providing data to argue a completely different point all because you were apparently triggered (yes, triggered) by somebody's comment.

And yes, the more you continued to felt necessary to add, the more obvious your condescension became. Apparently, you're an expert of detecting aggression in people's typed posts, but oblivious to how you come across in your own. Adding "joking, lol" to the end of a sarcastic comment of your own doesn't make it "light fun" instead. So stop throwing stones atop that glass house of yours. What's really getting tiring is your disingenuous attempts at seeming like you were never here to start something or provoke a reaction when everything beyond your first post contained about as much passive-aggression and confrontational language that you apparently want to point out is coming from me.

And I'm not promptly ignoring anything more than you are/were, just because I don't address every petty, unrelated point you make. Which is rich, because you've already done that several times. You promptly seem to be getting bent when somebody doesn't acknowledge your points, but the fact that you have to ask me now what I found resemblance between the two trailers (go back and look) tells me you haven't actually been trying to engage in a "casual interaction" so much as you've been looking to argue for the sake of arguing while pretending to have some sort of moral high ground. So you broke down exactly what they're wearing and where they were with a synopsis of what each character did (btw, that isn't nearly as close to a Midlander Hyur normal walk as you make it sound like it is. Clearly more hop and skip in her step)? the vibe, presentation and general appearance of two things can be similar without being exact copies of each other. I shouldn't have to explain this nuance, but it's obvious that you are trying to split hairs and make 1:1 comparisons to discredit anyone who finds resemblance because clearly the thought triggers you. I only "VERY conveniently cut" that part out in the quote (which is the whole point of 2 sets of ellipsis in a quote) because the space it takes up in a mere quote is ridiculous.


Nope, nice try. I correctly pointed out her outfit has more in common with the Devout class, with there being seldom overlap. It wasn't "conveniently ignored," you just don't actually read, but I've known this for majority of our interaction. So sorry, pulling up like the one exception to being White mage over Devout doesn't make me wrong, go look it up. Regardless, it has nothing to do with me pointing out the irony in the character wearing cat ears also ended up turning into a Pictomancer. But please, continue to argue that me noticing and pointing out that coincidence is my imagination.

Also I'm glad you found 16-bit sprites to be evidence that the job must be blithely frolicking about, lol. Bravely Default is published by SE and often borrows and uses the Final Fantasy line's jobs and gimmicks in their gameplay. It is a more recent game (but of course you should have known that, since you love recounting release dates so much) and also it pertains to a job class much like XIV rather than a single character, so that's why I felt it to be relevant; so why don't you take your own advice and check your awareness if you're going to start talking smack.

You continue to want to bring up historical facts of the job as if they have any bearing on what I originally made reference to and continue to prove my point about you taking the subject matter more serious than you pretend to, so I can tell there's clearly a paintbrush stuck in your... hat.



I bet. Probably the most engagement you had on here in years, huh?




Except you haven't actually added anything else new worth engaging with besides pictures, besides asking questions I already acknowledged and showing your true colors as a confrontational and sarcastic person who likes to project and wanting to take this to a personal level. Really, that's the only enlightenment that needs to be had here. Which is why I didn't believe for a moment when you claimed you weren't trying to "pick up(?) a fight." You claim I'm making stuff up when I've basically pointed out observations before you taking upon yourself to attempt to "debunk" what I've observed. So, so far everything coming from you has actually been aggressive as you continue to prove my initial assessment of your point of even engaging in the first place. Thanks for dropping all pretenses; the whole: "I'm not trying to start anything but-" schtick was getting old. Don't act like you aren't relieved to finally own up to it now that somebody's called you out on it (lol).



"Pat, I'll take 'Continuing to Pretend to Have the Moral High Ground While Being Pretentious' for 500, please."

It's both interesting and sad that you made such an effort in trying to analyze both me and the supposed implications of that post (missing the intention of the obviously different tone in the process), yet somehow didn't bother to address directly the comparisons and actually explain what exactly is the base for your opinion, instead of some vague "the intros look similar" or "their choice of model and behavior are similar" or "both use blonde cutesy girls" or "they have the same vibe", and the likes. I wasn't kidding when I said two posts ago that I was honestly wondering what made you specifically think that way, or three posts ago about how you would have made the job trailer to look different enough in that sense for you. I'm still wondering right now what legit makes you think about the Pictomancer looking more similarly shown to the way the Artist also was in its trailer than to what it has always looked like in the Final Fantasy games (I reduce this to FF games because, for example, there aren't chocobos or moogles in BD, as it's a different IP that doesn't repeat the usual FF tropes, other than taking inspiration from some) that it has appeared in. You might jump on the gun again at me for saying this, but my honest opinion is that you're just grasping at straws there to find something that isn't even there. But I'm really wondering if somehow I can't notice some important details in the trailers that you actually noticed. Because I understand what you say about both trailer intros showing females walking around, acting cute, and using their paintbrushes. But these similarities are on such a basic level, that I can't see any actual connection between both. Especially since, and this is why I insisted on the historical record, the Pictomancer has always had that vibe about it and the model has a reason to look and act like that, so I believe that that was the most logical and straightforward way to make the intro.

Anyway, if you were right about what you assumed, I would instead had gone back point by point and I would even quote everything that you've ignored, disregarded or rewritten to your convenience to have a "gotcha" moment against you, like you thought that I wanted to do. However, it's not worth the effort to repeat something that I already said (and showed) several times for naught, or play your game of "I'm better than you" for real and not in a sarcastic way to show you the difference between my original posts and what you interpreted. I think that the rest of the posters don't deserve that, and I can see that it was a mistake to write the previous post in the tone that I wrote it in, since it seems to not have served the intended purpose. My honest apologies to everyone.

But you're right about one thing, thought: I didn't bother coming to the English forums in a very long time because there are way too many people like you (not a majority, but an annoying minority nonetheless), and that's something that almost everyone agrees on, even the devs and CM, apparently, since both stopped interacting here. I'm not saying that you're actually one of those, but you have been giving me such impression. You really assumed stuff that I think that I never hinted at originally, and kept avoiding answering directly despite doing my best to explain myself and properly back what I was saying. Misunderstandings happen, but you took it a step beyond way before my last post.

Have a good one. Unless you suddenly decide to answer what I asked you about in a concise and detailed way, since I won't assume that you won't ever do it. Otherwise, you win, if that makes you happy. And no, there's no sarcasm in this post.

[Cidel]

It's both interesting and sad that you made such an effort in trying to analyze both me and the supposed implications of that post (missing the intention of the obviously different tone in the process), yet somehow didn't bother to address directly the comparisons and actually explain what exactly is the base for your opinion, instead of some vague "the intros look similar" or "their choice of model and behavior are similar" or "both use blonde cutesy girls" or "they have the same vibe", and the likes. I wasn't kidding when I said two posts ago that I was honestly wondering what made you specifically think that way, or three posts ago about how you would have made the job trailer to look different enough in that sense for you. I'm still wondering right now what legit makes you think about the Pictomancer looking more similarly shown to the way the Artist also was in its trailer than to what it has always looked like in the Final Fantasy games (I reduce this to FF games because, for example, there aren't chocobos or moogles in BD, as it's a different IP that doesn't repeat the usual FF tropes, other than taking inspiration from some) that it has appeared in. You might jump on the gun again at me for saying this, but my honest opinion is that you're just grasping at straws there to find something that isn't even there. But I'm really wondering if somehow I can't notice some important details in the trailers that you actually noticed. Because I understand what you say about both trailer intros showing females walking around, acting cute, and using their paintbrushes. But these similarities are on such a basic level, that I can't see any actual connection between both. Especially since, and this is why I insisted on the historical record, the Pictomancer has always had that vibe about it and the model has a reason to look and act like that, so I believe that that was the most logical and straightforward way to make the intro.

Anyway, if you were right about what you assumed, I would instead had gone back point by point and I would even quote everything that you've ignored, disregarded or rewritten to your convenience to have a "gotcha" moment against you, like you thought that I wanted to do. However, it's not worth the effort to repeat something that I already said (and showed) several times for naught, or play your game of "I'm better than you" for real and not in a sarcastic way to show you the difference between my original posts and what you interpreted. I think that the rest of the posters don't deserve that, and I can see that it was a mistake to write the previous post in the tone that I wrote it in, since it seems to not have served the intended purpose. My honest apologies to everyone.

But you're right about one thing, thought: I didn't bother coming to the English forums in a very long time because there are way too many people like you (not a majority, but an annoying minority nonetheless), and that's something that almost everyone agrees on, even the devs and CM, apparently, since both stopped interacting here. I'm not saying that you're actually one of those, but you have been giving me such impression. You really assumed stuff that I think that I never hinted at originally, and kept avoiding answering directly despite doing my best to explain myself and properly back what I was saying. Misunderstandings happen, but you took it a step beyond way before my last post.

Have a good one. Unless you suddenly decide to answer what I asked you about in a concise and detailed way, since I won't assume that you won't ever do it. Otherwise, you win, if that makes you happy. And no, there's no sarcasm in this post.

It's unfortunate, because a lot of that just perfectly described you as soon as you came onto the scene and posts beyond; but I'm not entirely sure if it's just lack of self-awareness to see how hard you project your rampant passive aggressiveness while calling-out others on how you get to interpret theirs. It's also unfortunate that nothing described is apparently sufficient enough for you, so you'll simply hand-wave it as "vague," simply because you disagree with it. But then again, your whole obsession has been to make peevish arguments picking apart unrelated data points nobody was debating and to turn an innocuous statement into something that has to be outlined and explained in great detail to your specific satisfaction. And any genuine questions you may have had were instantly buried under all the backhanded snark and I wasn't avoiding answering your questions as most sounded more rhetorical than anything else. I've already mentioned why and how I found the similarities (there's a couple more you glossed over, but given your proclivity to needing specific detail, probably wouldn't be up to your standards anyway), so what's the point in repeating myself?

My key take away from this whole interaction with you is that you took obvious offense to any implication of plagiarism on behalf of the company for some reason, no matter how flippant, when similarities were pointed out and you obviously take things a whole lot seriously than you pretend not to. The fact that you want to go "point by point" over something you clearly read more into than anybody else here based on how you interpreted my opinions is just a new level of pettiness that only solidifies my observation. You absolutely were actively seeking "gotcha" moments; these past two pages are a clear indication of that with all the fluff and lore you're been running in circles over. Your free to deny it; maybe you genuinely weren't, but you certainly came off as gunning for them. The fact that you think the "I'm better than you" game was my game certainly carries some tone-deafness; who engaged who first?

Saying both there "are way too many people like you" and "I'm not saying that you're actually one of those" are contradictory points, so I'm not sure why even bother mentioning it. Personally, I think less people would be willing to engage with individuals like you, that take comments not even directed at you too far and nearly demand that people explain their opinions to a satisfactory degree for you; and I'm glad I only run into individuals like yourself around here only once or twice during my 10+ years posting here. Misunderstanding certainly do happen, but clearly you decided to try to get a few jabs in your next reply when simply told to carefully reread what I had posted and your freedom to take what you quoted seriously. Don't act as if you were innocent during the early stages either and this is all on me.

Cheers then. I don't owe you any additional answers up to whatever standards you deign aren't beneath you. Coincidentally you're also right about one thing: there really wasn't any real sarcasm in your post; just the overbearing condescension that was always there from the start. So, par the course. "You do you."

au revoir.

[Yshnal]

It's unfortunate,because a lot of that just perfectly described you as soon as you came onto the scene and posts beyond; but I'm not entirely sure if it's just lack of self-awareness to see how hard you project your rampant passive aggressiveness while calling-out others on how you get to interpret theirs. It's also unfortunate that nothing described is apparently sufficient enough for you, so you'll simply hand-wave it as "vague," simply because you disagree with it. But then again, your whole obsession has been to make peevish arguments picking apart unrelated data points nobody was debating and to turn an innocuous statement into something that has to be outlined and explained in great detail to your specific satisfaction. And any genuine questions you may have had were instantly buried under all the backhanded snark and I wasn't avoiding answering your questions as most sounded more rhetorical than anything else. I've already mentioned why and how I found the similarities (there's a couple more you glossed over, but given your proclivity to needing specific detail, probably wouldn't be up to your standards anyway), so what's the point in repeating myself?

My key take away from this whole interaction with you is that you took obvious offense to any implication of plagiarism on behalf of the company for some reason, no matter how flippant, when similarities were pointed out and you obviously take things a whole lot seriously than you pretend not to. The fact that you want to go "point by point" over something you clearly read more into than anybody else here based on how you interpreted my opinions is just a new level of pettiness that only solidifies my observation. You absolutely were actively seeking "gotcha" moments; these past two pages are a clear indication of that with all the fluff and lore you're been running in circles over. Your free to deny it; maybe you genuinely weren't, but you certainly came off as gunning for them. The fact that you think the "I'm better than you" game was my game certainly carries some tone-deafness; who engaged who first?

Saying both there "are way too many people like you" and "I'm not saying that you're actually one of those" are contradictory points, so I'm not sure why even bother mentioning it. Personally, I think less people would be willing to engage with individuals like you, that take comments not even directed at you too far and nearly demand that people explain their opinions to a satisfactory degree for you; and I'm glad I only run into individuals like yourself around here only once or twice during my 10+ years posting here. Misunderstanding certainly do happen, but clearly you decided to try to get a few jabs in your next reply when simply told to carefully reread what I had posted and your freedom to take what you quoted seriously. Don't act as if you were innocent during the early stages either and this is all on me.

Cheers then. I don't owe you any additional answers up to whatever standards you deign aren't beneath you. Coincidentally you're also right about one thing: there really wasn't any real sarcasm in your post; just the overbearing condescension that was always there from the start. So, par the course. "You do you."

au revoir.

You're right, you don't even owe me (or anyone) an answer over anything. But you're confusing my insistence in trying to make you just clearly talk about the topic and stop judging or voicing my supposed thoughts in my stead, with me thinking that you owe me anything or that you should actually do it for some obscure reason. Well, to be fair I actually think that you owe something to anyone, and that's the benefit of the doubt and some respect. Because you don't know if you get the wrong impression because someone's first language isn't English or some similar things. I even apologised for using the wrong method to try and make you stop in that specific post, and I apologise again without "ifs" or "buts".

Anyway, no, I'm not defending SE. I (and many others as well) got in plenty of trouble in the past for criticizing them in these very same discussion boards for actual serious stuff like the changes that the cash shop brought to other areas of the game. This was never about defending the Pictomancer, as you said that you thought since the start, but about me not seeing what you were talking about in regards to any kind of similarities or implications.

Take care.