| CGI-Quality said: Interesting spin (as you've done with practically each post) but no, not what I said (or meant) at all. You implied: "because they're retro, they're better". I've argued against it and stated that it was plenty irrelevant (which it is when discussing quantity). I've successfully debated for fact - you've successfully argued against it, from the very first post. |
No, actually that was never implied at all. I said retro has a larger pool, if 5% of games are ever good, then obviously the larger pool will have more better games. That's no different from me saying that a bag of marbles has more marbles in it than a bag of no marbles. This is not opinions, at all, its just numbers.
You've actually done nothing, then, to argue against this other than to say it is my opinion... which is odd, because its not really an opinion, its just numbers. A list, some would say. Like I said, and as has been said, if the length of the list mattered, then retro would always win... and we just got done saying that, apparently, it was the length of the list that mattered.
To the FamiCom!
