By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wyrdness on 20 July 2018
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Wyrdness said:

Your analogy goes on about materials in this case that would be what was used to make the game UE4 which is the same as many AAA games of the same price basically your analogy backfired hard here and the reason why? You never had a viable stance to argue to start off with.

Yes you do have a problem you know how I know and what makes it obvious I didn't come out with any pitchfork like stance to begin with I responded to someone trying to equate budget to what a game's value is which is far from what you're trying to suggest was said, when you bsing and fabricating arguments to try and argue that flat out shows its you who has the issue.

Is English not your first language because if it isn't I highlighted what determines a games value which is the quality of the content, music, story etc... as well as the amount of content you just picked one word in a whole post and decided argue the one word with your strawman arguments, remasters and old ports are not newly developed titles they're titles for an old era and are already available on prior platforms for cheaper this is an example of your strawman arguments. If you admit the content is good why are you even arguing here either English is not your first language and you didn't grasp what was posted or you're looking to reach for an argument.

Customers pay for what they perceive to have value worth the amount they pay for hence they buy what they want as opposed to asking for discounts at every turn.

Nope UE4 is a tool not material (asset)... The asset would be texture, models, polygons, etc, exactly the things that are not cutting edge.

Budget never equates value. Nothing tangible and objective equates value (things like you saying solid facts would make it even funnier).

Strawman isn't focusing in part of the argument, wanted to remember you of it. I admitted the content is good? You try to shove words in my mouth (I didn't say the content is good or bad, but you tried to shoehorn both opinions on me). I said that if someone think the content isn't good (hint, the polish, graphic and other aspects can be relevant for someone that thinks the content isn't good...) content isn't simply the amount of time it takes you to do something.

Trying to use my language as merit of discussion is another fallacy of argumentation, funny for someone accusing another of doing personal route.

Yes customers pay what they think something is worth. Which already put the premise of OP to rest. For people that think this game isn't worth because it doesn't have the level of detail and production value AAA games have then for them it's true. Now please go and say the same to OP.

Not cutting edge doesn't equate to poor like you've tried to argue.

When you try to argue a stance you take on the angle you're coming from in this case you tried arguing the content was not as good as what it is in other games so you got a rebuttal that dealt with that angle it's only when you were debunked that you began back peddling saying you meant this and that. Even the non sense you're coming up with now about saying it's not to some people's tastes has bugger all to do with what I said because I was addressing someone who was equating budget to value.

I'm pulling you on whether it's your first language because your responses do not match the debate you're arguing in any context the only way for that to happen is either a language barrier or if you're deliberately arguing something to just try and push your stance, as for being personal believe me if I went personal after you tried to slick you wouldn't be here right now your hands would be shaking while you look off into the sky somewhere.

Why should I say the same to the OP I wasn't responding to him and he hasn't responded to me I responded to a post about budget how about you say it to the op and don't tell others what to do.