pokoko said:
Perhaps you do not understand the difference between imply and infer? All I've ever said is other Zelda games--which includes spin-offs--and I never once said people were "fooled". This entire thing has turned ridiculous. If you want to battle over something as meaningless as thing, then go find someone else. I'm sure it won't be hard. It's getting impossible to even have a discussion without people acting as if their family honor has been insulted. |
Maybe I don't understand the difference between imply and infer, I'm not a native english speaker, I'm a german. And yes you didn't said people were fooled, but you talked like it was the case. Yes, many people wouldn't have bought Hyrule Warriors without the zelda-skin, still they were with the usual few exceptions well aware that this wasn't a Zelda-game. And by that I mean mainline-game. Nobody includes Crossbow training or rupeeland into Zelda-games, like nobody includes Theatrhythm into Final Fantasy games. That you do is only to belittle the sales of Hyrule Warrior. You were the one throwing away the comparison to Dynasty Warriors but bringing up a comparison to Zelda. But most people who would buy Zelda didn't buy Hyrule Warriors, because they know it isn't a mainline Zelda. but some bought it, because they were interested in Warriors games or interested in new gameplay experiences and want the zelda fanservice. Nothing wrong with that. That makes the comparison to One Piece Pirate Warriors or Gundam Warriors the best matching comparison, still a comparison to Dynasty Warriors is much ridiculous than one to mainline Zeldas (and as I said, if people say Final Fantasy they don't mean Theatrhythm and then they say Zelda they don't mean Rupeeland). But you act as if your family honor has been insulted by the fact, that a bit of Zelda-lore can sell a Warriors game quite well. Why are you so upset about that, that you have to ridicule yourself?