Just go with it.

Proves nothing of the sort because the comparison has no context in the argument you were trying make as it stands you've not debunked what I put forward, you're comparing two different gaming eras and using fallacies here.

You're trying to deny the existence of the fact that DKC was cutting edge and the top-selling game in 1994 while DKC Returns was not in 2010.

Pointing out that the market grew and advanced does not change the fact that DKC Returns did not have the impact of DKC. And you have the audacity to say I'm using fallacious arguments when your argument is basically a series of non-sequiturs and red herring fallacies.

And no, I don't need to debunk your points when they fail to debunk mine. You challenged my argument, not the other way around.

No I'm pointing out the fact that ofcourse one would be cutting edge in an era where the are only 2D games while the other wouldn't in the era of 3D gaming because the latter has a new layer of complexity to it in it's period to the point that no 2D game will ever be considered cutting edge anymore no matter how good it is that's the factor you're trying to dodge for the sake of your argument and it's the flaw in your argument here.

Yes you do need to debunk my points because they countered your whole argument that's how a debate works mate when your points are countered you have to address what countered them simply refusing to address the point is an admission on your part your argument has been debunked, saying that if a game is a worth while follow up it would be like BOTW is a fallacious argument when looking all the actual factors and contexts.

Cory Barlog made his twitter erase all Sony mentions. Made it space themed. Confirmed he is taking over Retro and Metroid Prime 4.

edit DP ignore

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.

You took the word "adequate" out of context to spin a straw man to dismiss rather than addressing my actual point. I used the word adequate as a label to differentiate cutting edge sequels like Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Galaxy from the throwback games like New Super Mario Bros and Phantom Hourglass. This was done to summarize and clarify what I wrote in my previous posts. Arguing that DKC Returns and Tropical Freeze are like the latter because they aren't groundbreaking isn't in any way assuming the consequent. If I stated something like "Some worthy followups are DKC games, therefore DKC Returns and DKC Tropical Freeze are worthy followups." that would be assuming the consequent.

I've already pointed out examples of cutting edge follow-ups in the Mario and Zelda franchises (Galaxy and BotW) on the same consoles as DKC Returns and DKC Tropical Freeze. They did not require stronger hardware to make substantial impacts on par or superior to their most impactful predecessors. Saying that DKC couldn't have a groundbreaking 3D follow up is simply a lack of imagination on your part.

No I addressed your point just fine the problem is on your end here because the term cutting edge and adequate do not fall in the same context as one is an objective term the other is subjective so this claim about being taken out of context doesn't make any sense when this was your original reply.

"The difference being that the DKC games Rare did in 1994 were state of the art platformers with two of them being the top selling games of the year, and the third being a top 5 game for the year. DKC Returns and Tropical Freeze were nowhere near state of the art games or top 5 selling of the year, leave alone 1st."

The word adequate was not even used until you bumped the thread and at that point you had already set the context on being focused on cutting edge and salesso no you weren't taken out of context as you set that context yourself. Galaxy was also not cutting edge as the were far more technical games at the time and before it even launched while BOTW is cutting edge as it's a game that can be play portable an area where no game does what it does.