Nuvendil said:
If you're going to accumse me of being a hypocrit, you had better have more effing evidence than your excessive quibbling for...what is even the bloody point of this? All I said - ALL I said - was that I knew the game would score well - well being a general statement of quality, not a specific one - because past games have scored well. I was merely contrasting my perspective to the one put forward by numerous individuals on the internet and, yes, this very forum, that it would score significantly lower than previous souls games due to an anti-Sony conspiracy or anti-Sony sentiments. In that context, it being the best or worst is insignificant so long as it scored well - which it has - and within a reasonable deviation - 1 or 2 points - of the previous titles, which it has. In the context of my statements, it's place in history is entirely irrelevant. I don't know what you're accusing me of or arguing with me over but it's not what I said. So I'd appreciate it if you would stop your strawmanning cause it is seriously starting to chafe. |
Well I tried explaining it with lots of words so we'll switch things up since I don't want to write a text wall and you don't want to read another. It's not just scoring well, it's scoring better. Say that is semantics but it's an important distinction to make.
I am Iron Man
