Geesh ... what's wrong with editing? You think I'm sitting here being disengenous by ... editing?

The only thing I edited a few replies ago was this into the end of my comment: "I've actually never heard "Cinematic games shouldn't be made because I don't like them" so more than likely you're just exaggerating the "crowd" of people who actually have legitimate gripes with such a genre. "

But sure ... I guess me editing a comment is super hilarious and also makes that comment lose credibility lol.

Did I say editing comments makes you disingenuous?  No, I did not.  Me calling you disingenuous wasn't even in the same comment.  However, bullshit arguments like that illustrate my point perfectly.   

I mean, "super hilarious"?  The hell are you even talking about?  

Judging by this nothing comment, I guess you're done?

I'd say Shenmue III has a shot since people have really high expectation, but I think it'll be more of a "split" disappointment where big fans of the series say it's an "ok ending" and people who aren't as familiar with the series will be more harsh with it. That being said I think it's unlikely Shenmue III comes out this year.

Crackdown 3 is a 50/50 guess, it's been delayed so much that it either could come out broken or extremely polished by the time they took.

Now Black Ops 4 imho has a big shot at being a stinker: if the rumors are true and there's no singleplayer campaign that will make some people upset BUT, if they also mess up the battle royale mode, then we've got a winner for 2018.

Detroit is the safest bet, the popular opinion on it is already split and depending on how many new scenarios they kept unannounced people might be really disappointed by the ammount of content in the game.

Edit: also Anthem ! I don't know where they are going with that game, I think the team at BioWare that developed it is really talented, but maybe EA will get them so stressed that they'll make a mess, I really hope not but it could happen...

That don't illustrate your point at all. I freely admit I do not know the point of the "editing" part of your comment, which is why I tackled it as either an implication of being disingenuous or you just finding humor in it (in which case I do not see what's funny ... especially because you said that two replies after I edited a comment). 

What do you mean MY nothing comment? Your last reply was basically admitting you weren't interested in the conversation anymore. You gave nothing to work with and no real response other than "I don't care if you've seen it or not, it's real!" So yeah, judging by your nothing response I guess we are done here.

Although 

"However, if you are saying that you've never read anyone say that cinematic games are ruining gaming then I simply do not believe you.  "

I never said I haven't heard that. I have heard it, or at least statements somewhat similar to that. The people I've heard it from did not say it in such an upfront and ignorant way however, and they never said those games should outright not be made, nor were they "attacking" them. It was also never as broad. The people I've heard say that were giving critic. Do not conflate it with the same thing. 

If you remember the argument originally started when you said: "Detroit: Become Human is going to generate a ton of negativity from the expected "omg it's not a game it's a movie" crowd who cannot stand the idea that others might like something they do not."

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). 

Not red dead 2. That’s a guarantee.

Yeah, you're not saying anything at all.  Your argument isn't even an argument.  I tell you what I'm talking about and you  pretend it's something else or that I've changed what I've said by expanding on it, all while you avoid even touching the original point.  

I give you the exact argument I'm talking about and your reply is "but they might have legitimate criticisms and arguments".  What does that even mean?  I specifically define the people I'm talking about and then you say I'm generalizing them?  I mean, what?  It's like I say that I'm talking about a group of green aliens and then you say that I shouldn't generalize that group as being green.  It's meaningless.

Read what the other person says then address that, not some point you've invented on your own.

You yourself are already being inconsistent who you're defining. I literally proved that in my last comment. At this point you're just defending yourself by saying I'm making up stuff. Sure, it's REALLY easy to say that someone just isn't addressing your points. It's been done a million times on forums and I've certainly said it before. It's basically the way to get out of any real point, "you just aren't addressing what i'm saying man!"

Well you've already shown that the definition of people you are describing IS loose because you keep changing what exact kind of statements you're referring to. Again, which one is it? A ) 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, B ) people who have said games of an entire genre should never be made, C ) particular people who have felt that the cinematic approach has ruined gaming for them. 

See how you ARE generalizing? You changed the point of discussion three times and only connected it by the general idea of people who are negative against a certain genre of games. 

Oh wait, you're just going to say I'm not addressing the point somehow, right? Even though I'm literally showing how you are generalizing and throwing a huge blanket over many different subgroups of people. 

Battlefield and Call of Duty. Not even bothering with numbers or subtitles on either of them. That's my general answer every year, LOL.

I am really hoping than Shenmue III is not a disappointment. It looks interesting.

It seems you really have a problem with comprehending the written word. 

I said, <b>you</b>, the angryllittlealche, are <b>trying</b> to justify the expected rants about a certain video game genre as legitimate critique/review.

Taking a look at your most wanted list make your words even more preposterous. Just arguing for the sake of argument.

Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's not true.  All you are proving is that you can win against the arguments you make up yourself.

Let's talk about the "many different subgroups of people" that I'm throwing a huge blanket over.  Let's talk about all these many subgroups exactly.

""omg it's not a game it's a movie" crowd who cannot stand the idea that others might like something they do not."

Now, that's the group I defined in my very first post.  What is the essence of group?  People who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves.  I literally specified who I'm talking about.  It's right there.

Now, you say that "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves" is actually many different subgroups of people.

Uh.

No, it's not.  It's literally a very narrow field.

Okay, then, it's your turn.  Explain to me why "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves" constitutes a wide range of subgroups.  What are these subgroups?  And how, exactly, am I generalizing "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves"?

Edit:  Also, I got to say that you not understanding that I did those edits on purpose is pretty funny.

Edit 2:  That was a fake edit.