By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

How are you not understanding this?  I'm talking about people who attack games they know they won't like because they have a problem with those games existing.  Are you defending that?  "Cinematic games shouldn't be made because I don't like them" might be a "legitimate reason" in your mind but I think it's ridiculous and I have zero problem telling you that.

And I'm saying it's clear you are just generalizing a crowd to make a point about how such an idea should not be given any credit to it. As well as the inherent irony in your statement. 

And, no matter how much you use the words "attack" and "with those games existing" it doesn't enrich your point, it just makes the wording sound more villainous to drive a narrative. In real life application, what that means is you don't want people who most likely know they won't like a game to criticize it. Unfortunately, people can make very valid points and criticisms while still generally being against a certain type of game. It's not always the case of course(see: the Souls games), but it happens and it shouldn't be discouraged based on principal. 

How can I be generalizing a crowd when I've clearly defined the crowd I'm talking about?  That makes no sense.

In a real life application, all you're doing is trying to muddle an argument.  You're either being disingenuous or simply obtuse.  Having an agenda where your purpose is to ruin the enjoyment of others is not something pure or noble.  Maybe you're fine with that, maybe you support that, but I do not.  

Your "people can make very valid points and criticisms" line is especially puzzling, as I've already spelled out the exact criticism I'm talking about.  I don't know why you continue to repeat that as though you haven't read what I've written.  What "valid points and criticisms" are you even talking about?  Where are you getting that?