AngryLittleAlchemist said:
This is such a weirdly loaded comment and overly passive aggressive. I'm not calling you retarded or using a fallacy that states as such, I'm simply stating that I felt it was pretty obvious what I meant when I wrote that comment. Maybe to you it wasn't, that's fine, but honestly bickering back and forth over whether my comment was obvious enough isn't productive in the first place. It's a silly thing for both of us to get caught up on, I mean really, what does it change whether or not the comment was too abstract now that you know what I meant? At the end of the day the message stays the same: A mainline 2D Zelda under a third party company would be preferable to no new mainline 2D Zelda. I'm not even sure how you can qualify it as goal post shifting when you are replying to a comment I made about my own personal wishes, like do you think I didn't know what I meant when I was writing my original comment? The original comment wasn't in the form of an argument, it was in the form of a preference I stated, so this doesn't even make sense. I'm also not sure why you are so upset over using qualifiers. Yes ... I am talking about a non-spin off title. Yes, that by definition is using a qualifier. So what? What is the harm in that? Qualifiers exist for reason, because they qualify things. It's not like it's an arbitrary one, either. It literally changes everything from how the game is made, to how it's marketed, to how it fits in terms of significance in the franchise. "It's a good thing 2D Metroid is seen as small enough to warrant Nintendo giving to a third party dev, otherwise we wouldn't have Samus Returns. It's a good thing the Mario IP is seen as flexible enough to warrant Nintendo giving to Ubisoft, otherwise we wouldn't have Mario + Rabbids. It's a good thing the Hyrule Warriors is considered a spinoff to warrant Nintendo giving it to Tecmo Koei, otherwise we wouldn't have Age of Calamity." Reminder of the original comment being replied to: "I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda would be seen as small enough for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be. Seriously though, if Nintendo isn't going to make new entries in a lot of their franchises, I think letting prolific third parties make new entries in them rather than just pumping out more remakes would be a much cooler solution. If we get a remade 2D Metroid or another remade Zelda on the Switch instead of a new game ... my god ... " At this point you are just arguing in bad faith and being overly aggressive. Like come on man, my original comment even addresses most of these criteria. The only thing it doesn't address is mainline, non-spin-off entries ... but we've already discussed that to death, which invalidates your other examples. Honestly you're hung up on the lack of one word: mainline. |
Your replies have been so all over the place that I'm honestly more confused than I was at the beginning. Like, you tell me that I'm being overly passive agressive, but what would you call these?
| AngryLittleAlchemist said: Do you think I didn't know about this game. Or do you think, maybe, a brand new 2D Zelda game, a mainline one no less, has more precedence to set than a spin-off rhythm game? |
| AngryLittleAlchemist said: I mean, anyone who understands that connotations are a thing would pick up on the fact that we're talking about a mainline game. |
| AngryLittleAlchemist said: Even if I could have been more anally clear, I think there is clearly enough subtext there for anyone to get the point. |
I'm getting the strong impression that you feel that I tried to insult your intelligence, so you felt the need to respond in kind. So if I'm right, then I'd like to honestly apologize and let you know that it wasn't my intention. You said you don't think 2D Zelda is small enough for Nintendo to give to a third party. I gave you an example of a small third party that Nintendo gave 2D Zelda to. That was my simple intention, and my simple line of thinking. I'm not the one who started making things convoluted by adding all of these extras to the original statement.
The few things that you do put simply, I agree with. Namely, that it's silly and unproductive of us to bicker back and forth, and that a 2D Zelda under a third party would be preferable to no 2D Zelda at all. Not sure why you keep bringing up the word "mainline." All I see with that is another arbitrary and conditional label to justify the fact that you neglected to mention a brand new 2D Zelda from a third party developer. I don't care if the game is "mainline" or not, because it's fun and it feels like a Zelda game.
As for your question on whether I think you don't know what you meant when you were writing your original comment... you wouldn't like my answer, because it kind of feels like you're mansplaining everything to yourself just as much, but unlike me, you have the privilege of having an inside conversation with yourself. I never mentioned "mainline", nor the genre, nor how "small" it is, or any other labels that don't really matter. You're the one who keeps adding these things and making this discussion more and more complicated. So more and more, I feel like I'm not the only one confused here.
Since we both agree that any 2D Zelda is better than no new 2D Zelda, we can leave at that, or you can go ahead and type your reply and we'll leave it there. I made my point in my original reply to you, and I feel that it still stands regardless of whatever you want to call Cadence of Hyrule.
