- Joined
- Mar 15, 2015
I don't think he's entirely wrong with his point about cliffhangers. They are a tool that can be used to build suspense and create a feeling of anticipation for the reader or the audience. I also agree that creating a cliffhanger that will never be resolved is a terrible move. The 'who shot Mr. Burns' episode is a good example of an effective cliffhanger, but if it hadn't been resolved I imagine that a lot of people would have been very upset.
That doesn't mean that they're bad though. What irritates me is how he claimed that the only place where a cliffhanger would be effective is in a novel, where the cliffhanger is resolved quickly in the next chapter of the book.
It seems like he's trying to justify why he's continuing work on his novel and his unfinished game. It seems as though he's claiming that his novel and game are bad because they ended with cliffhangers, therefore his game and novel aren't bad, cliffhangers are bad.
Well, even Mr. Enter isn't retarded enough to miss simple, obvious points such as, "Don't write a cliffhanger if you're not going to resolve it!" I mean, he'd have to be lobotomized to get that wrong.