Currently Online 
| Jumpin said: There is nothing fallacious about pointing out how Breath of the Wild is cutting edge while DKC Returns is not. What fallacy would that even be? The “Pointing out the facts” fallacy? I am not disputing the fact that 2D is less exciting than 3D, it’s not relevant. For example, assuming that what you write is true, describing why DKC Returns isn’t cutting edge does not take away from the fact that it wasn’t cutting edge. What you have done is put forward an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. |
It's fallacious because the whole context of your argument is DKCR is not a good follow up because it didn't repeat was done in a long gone era despite selling well and is not like BOTW which not only completely ignores the factors of the era of both games but the affirmation that it can only be a good follow up if it's like BOTW (a game that is far from a 2D platformer) is an example of you affirming consequence because your logic here is DKC was good because it was cutting edge and topped charts so DKCR not being cutting edge and not topping charts makes it not as good as well as an inconsistent comparison a which is something I'm not the only person to point out. In order to be cutting edge in the 3D era it would have to drop being a 2D platformer (it would no longer be a DKC game at that point) and be released on a more powerful platform which is the flaw in your stance here as by default the's no way any game Retro made at that point would hit the target you're saying should be hit.
This is why not only is 2D and 3D is relevant in the context you're trying to argue as they're among factors surrounding both the old and new games but so is the ecosystem of the industry at the time for both games, the last sentence of your post doesn't really make any sense.
