I have no problem rationalizing the deck 12 reference, but letís be honest, anything we come up with is exactly that, a rationalization of an inconsistency.
How do you know it is an inconsistency?
How do you know that this is not something they intended (Deck 12 matches the deck level, the cabin walls match the angle of the ship's hull, there are windows with shutters - quite some strange coincidence), before they changed it?
Ironically, the kind of criticism aridas sofia
tried to expose me to is exactly the kind of criticism I feel to be applicable to what is merely an assumption at the expense of people that no longer walk the Earth ("they didn't know what they were doing").
Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider, that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.
@ corporal captain
No, obviously you didn't get it, you're confusing "passion" with "preference". All I was trying to convey was that if you don't feel passionate about something, one shouldn't wonder that the outcome is not a role model of accuracy.