Riled up? I wasn't upset or even emotional at all, merely expressing my opinion. I have to admit I am now though.

You know someone can write paragraphs about a topic and not be riled up, right? Especially when they end the conversation saying that it's perfectly fine to think what you want? Oh boy ... what was it you said earlier? "Too bad most of the contradictions from the Zelda fanbase aren't explained". Seems like you don't like it when people take the time to explain things to you! And you tell me to get over myself while all I did was write an innocent reply informing you on why the basis for that "meme" isn't a good argument (which you posted in agreement with an actual argument, otherwise I wouldn't have even replied), while you're asking an entire fanbase to justify an opinion most of them don't even agree on, and then act like I'm fuming at the seems for just having a healthy discussion with you. Also hilarious you respond as if I said you can't call out a contradiction when my 2nd to last sentence says plain as day that you're more than welcome to. 

Christ, now I actually am upset. It sucks when you are writing a well thought out reply wanting a meaningful discussion and then you get a reply that doesn't even respond to anything substantial you mentioned, and then goes on to just act like you're an emotional wreck for taking the time out of your day to write about something you love (video games and the community), on a forum that's literally all about said thing you love. All I was trying to have was a meaningful conversation on why oversimplifications like that are mostly incorrect or false. 

Here is the full quote from my post.

"Too bad most of the contradictions from the Zelda fanbase aren't explained by it "

This was in response to you saying 90% of contradictions are explained but anyone who has followed Zelda for ages has become aware of the Zelda cycle that has been around since OOT where when the new game comes out it's suddenly the worst game in the franchise and the previous suddenly becomes appreciated and often this was driven by a tonne of contradictory arguments. The fact you tried quoting only part of one line to skewer context says more about you than anything.

Your reply comes across more as someone riled over the meme so I addressed you in how it came over, it does not come across as looking for debate or innocent especially as you bemoan the language in the meme which sets a different tone from wanting a debate. Complaining about over simplifications isn't even much of a debatable topic here because Mzu's post was a reference to the long running Zelda Cycle gag that spawned that meme over 10 years ago it's clearly not talking about the people who articulate which is why your reply is so baffling I can only assume you haven't followed the series for as long as others to not get that and the context of the meme in general.

Ironically no offence to the poster but someone just posted an example of what the meme pokes fun at with the WW/SS debate but anyway I got the wrong impression from your post so my bad.

They're not really trying to compare the experience just how the games compare to each other in everything else they do.

Yeah I get that feeling as well even though they go for different experiences the attention to detail in how the player interacts with the world and mechanics certainly shows in these games especially when compared to other games. What really gets me is that BOTW is still technically a WiiU game and they pulled of something comparable to RDR2 just trying to factor that in makes the next Zelda's task a mountain as building on such an achievement will take an insane amount of work, I remember how when OOT came out it was comparable to games that came years later.

Going forwards I expect to see BOTW's influence show up in more and more games, much like how it happened with games like Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Halo, Gears of War, COD4, etc.

Topping BOTW will indeed be a tall order, but the fact that at its core its a Wii U game does give them a leg up, as with the Switch as presumably the hardware baseline for its successor, they'll have access to more powerful hardware off the bat to facilitate more detail and complexity.

Hm .. I skimmed over this post and thought it was a "sorry for misinterpreting your intention" but then I see that you are kind of insulting me?

"The fact you tried quoting only part of one line to skewer context says more about you than anything."

Like ... what? 

Here is how I quoted you: 

"Too bad most of the contradictions from the Zelda fanbase aren't explained"

Here is how you quoted yourself:

"Too bad most of the contradictions from the Zelda fanbase aren't explained by it "

You're saying my integrity as a poster is in question because ... I didn't quote the "by it" part? What does that even change in the sentence? It means the same thing! And even if it didn't shouldn't your first thought be that, I don't know, I wasn't anal enough to care about two words? Rather than saying "Ohhh this says a lot about you". I was simply shortening a quote, it doesn't change the meaning or context at all. 

Like what ... 

Also, the "Zelda cycle" is well known, hell if you looked at one of my posts just a few comments earlier you'll see I even kind of mentioned it (when I said that I can't wait till the next Zelda comes out so people can complain about the legit problems with BOTW). !!! 

It's not an insult if I wanted to insult you believe me I'll just  be direct, the full quote shows I'm responding to what you said explained the contradictions what you quoted even leaving out one word changes the context of the quote to anyone who may read your quote even look at the two quotes in your post one is referring to something with the "it" part the other looks like it's just making a statement for someone looking to debate you should realize this as it can look like you're deliberately quoting something out of context.

I don't believe you're actually insulting me, but that is putting my character into question for quite honestly no real reason. Two words, both of which are extremely minor and don't change the point of your sentence, like, at all. 

I don't think anyone reading will think "Man, ALA was trying to pull a fast one! That meanie! Trying to misrepresent someone like that". You just called me out without any real basis. But sure, I should have included two words that add nothing to the quote. Apologies sir. What was that about me getting over myself? 

My last post is actually not putting your character into question it's a for future reference thing, I was explaining to you why your post came over as it did, you may think it's minor but believe me if you want to debate as you say you do missing out a few words can change context and look like misquoting which will further lead to your posts not coming over as you intend, it's not really about what other people will think but the person you're conversing with as deliberate misquoting is often a common tactic when people have arguments.

People can only read the text in your post to go by not your intentions.

I'm sorry, but "The fact you tried quoting only part of one line to skewer context says more about you than anything." is a pretty clear indication of a judgement of character, that's literally what it is, you're not going to change that just by saying it's a "for future reference thing". In my opinion, you should have thought that one out a little bit more, first thinking about whether it was just to shorten a quote, and second thinking about if it was just an accident, because your solution was uncalled for. There's no other way you can really read that, especially with the "skewer context" part, which implies that I was purposefully trying to change your quote to fit my argument. If it was just you mentioning "hey, be careful not to misquote" that would be one thing, that's not all you said. 

I really can't believe two such trivial words that no one would have cared about lead to this. It seems to me you've been pretty hostile since the beginning honestly ... like since as early as the 2nd reply. Not much to really say here, we'll just leave it at that. Good day. 

Here is the problem here you're going back to a post to argue something that has already been settled as the posts after it clarified I misread your post due to you not putting the full quote in, you responded with an upset post using a partial quote which can easily look like misquoting. I explained already why I called you out on it as it looked like you were misquoting and yes leaving words out does change context so it is called for when someone does it as it's a common tactic by people to misquote someone to discredit their views it happens on these boards all the time even news articles do it for clicks how can you want to debate and not understand that? If you still don't get it then we clearly aren't geared for debating with each other and I ask simply don't reply to me as we have different takes on things and debating is clearly one of them as trust me I don't hide when I'm hostile never have as I'm direct.

Anything further PM me as the thread is being derailed.