| pokoko said: You're still not saying anything at all. Nothing but hot air. Be specific. Give me details. What subgroups are you talking about? Come on, you can do it. Explain your point. WHO are all these people you are talking about? WHO are all these different groups? And your "three separate times" thing is bullshit because I'm talking about the same group that I defined in my first post. You aren't making any sense at all. So, for the last time, EXPLAIN WHO ALL THESE SUBGROUPS ARE. I LITERALLY told you who I'm talking about. I defined it for you in clear English. Now you do the same. If not then, seriously, in perfect honesty, I'm just going to conclude that your reading comprehension is terrible.
As far as the editing thing goes, you said "(in which case I do not see what's funny ... especially because you said that two replies after I edited a comment). " ... or, wait, did you not understand that I was annoyed because I replied to your post before you edited it? |
You can keep being condescending but I've literally SHOWN what subgroups I'm talking about.
I'm probably not helping my case by saying "subgroups". They're not really "subgroups" but rather that you keep changing what specific stances you're talking about. Again, I literally already pointed it out.
"So you went from saying that there is an entire crowd of people who are not only negative but also that these people can not possibly fathom how a game in said genre is liked, to saying these people have said games of an entire genre should never be made, to saying that these particular people have felt that the cinematic approach has ruined gaming for them (or something)."
You changed what stances you were talking about as the discussion kept moving on. Now, you can generalize it as "haters of cinematic games". You can say it's an overarching branch of stances that you are talking about when referring to these haters. But when you change what you are specifically talking about to be different stances, then it becomes an inconsistent basis for discussion. One person might fall into all three, another might just fall into one. It's not a huge blanket group. It's a diverse set of opinions, and that's why I started discussing such things here. It is playing with fire when you specify haters and then change the notion of what a hater is (I know you didn't say "hater" but just let me use the layman term here). It's that kind of stuff that makes 7/10 BOTW or GOW4 reviews "troll reviews". I know that's not what you're saying, thinking, or doing, and I am guessing you are quite tolerant of others opinions. But I find making such a blanket statement of people in a serious discussion to be an issue because it sets up the basis of such statements, where suddenly a whole group of people who aren't haters are. Whatever, maybe I'm just being dumb(probably that).
....What? All I was saying was that you made that comment about my editing multiple replies after it happened. I never made a comment about your editing. Nor did the part you quoted have anything to do with why you wrote that part in. All I said in that quote was you wrote it a few replies after I edited. That's all.
Anyways I think one thing we're forgetting is that this entire discussion didn't start about who fits into one group. All I was saying was that I didn't see the connection between disliking something and literally not being able to stand the idea that others might like it. I mean, I've seen some asshole haters in my time and I've never seen someone who literally cannot fathom how someone can enjoy a specific kind of game. Even people who are in "that crowd". They probably exist though.
