| Aielyn said:
I didn't use it in actual comparison, I used it as an EXAMPLE. As in "if it sold this many, would it still be a flop, considering ?" - and then provided reasoning for why it could be that many. It's called a thought experiment, performed because we can't, currently, look at real data for it. And I never asserted that coming in 14th meant it would have a large total in the future. I used it to demonstrate that release week numbers do not strongly correlate with long-term sales numbers. A rather straightforward assertion that I then backed up with examples, speculated numbers (that were clearly marked as speculative) based on what we do know, and basic logical thought. What you then did was jump in and go "But 3D Land had these big games launching at the same day!", which simultaneously proved my point and showed a complete disregard for the discussion at hand, which was 3D World being outsold by things launching the same day. I didn't assert some grand debate, I said you jumped into the argument. Pavolink asserted that 3D World being 14th meant it was a flop (although he did so in a far less elaborate manner than I just did). I pointed out that there is no reason to assume so, given that we don't have numbers, and even if we did, a weak first week wouldn't necessarily mean a flop. You suggest I did the same to pavolink that you did to me... not true. Pavolink was talking about "terrible Mario sales", and called the game a flop. I pointed out that it was too early to make that declaration. I did trim the first line of his post out of my quote, but only because it wasn't necessary for the discussion - it was the theme of his post that I was responding to, with the quoted line epitomising the entire post. You, on the other hand, quoted my entire post, but ignored the content and the context in order to argue over a completely tangential thing based on my comparison of 3D World's week 1 sales to 3D Land's week 1 sales as a demonstration for why it's too early to call it a flop. The whole POINT of that comparison was to say "it's too early to call it a flop" - not "it's going to sell better" or "it sold better than you think", but "it's too early to call it a flop" - a direct response to his ENTIRE post. The context of my post, and of his, were in complete alignment. Yours... not so much. Now, you're probably going to complain about how I trimmed out your last paragraph. I did it because it was completely irrelevant, and an attempt by you to apply yet another logical fallacy in a misguided attempt to show me up. What I predicted last year is irrelevant to my words of "don't get ahead of yourself" now. |
"So for it to sell around half the number of copies (and 3D Land had 5 days to sell in, whereas 3D World has had 2 days) isn't bad at all." You might argue this is a hypothetical, but it certainly seems you are making a judgement based on it.
It's funny how you keep framing what happened before I came in as an "argument" or a "discussion". Even if we ignore the part where he only made one post in this thread, why exactly should I not be allowed to comment on points in your post independent from your "discussion"?
If the context of your post and his were in complete alignment, then why did you make absolutely no mention of what potential hardware boost Mario caused. About half of his post was about moving consoles. Where was all of that in your post? You seem to have done just about everything you're accusing me of.
Have you been anointed King of this thread or something? It seems like you get to decide on the theme of Pavolink's post. You decide who can participate in your argument. You decide what points in your post are allowed to be addressed. You decide what parts of my post are relevant. etc etc.
I didn't complain the previous time you trimmed my last paragraph, not sure why you think I am going to now. Though I fail to see how they were "completely irrelevant". both paragraphs which you trimmed contained responses to content in the quoted post. You had also never said the words "don't get ahead of yourself" in this thread before, so I don't see how it could be irrelevant to that either. You seem to play fast and loose with which parts of my posts you address when you've been accusing me of the same thing (not only talking about my references to your predictions last year.)
I still have no clue how you thought those numbers last year were remotely possible, but whatever.
