Yeah i cant wait, i'll be picking Risen up this friday then Dragon age next month.

Why would I kill you?

I mean, you gave +500 respect to something because I don't like Zelda and thinks everyone is required to love the series. That's just ridiculous.

Hmm, I dunno dude. Calling yourself a gamer and not liking Zelda is pushing it, imo. It's like not being able to create cereal and calling yourself a chef. It's like not being able to pump gas and calling yourself a mechanic, it's like having no voice and calling yourself a singer.

...pushing it.

It's 101. It's why games are good. It is the root of adventure, and the beginning of everything that gaming has become.

It's The Legend of Zelda when Final Fantasy was still Final Fantasy 1.

When gaming was absolute shit, Zelda and Mario were born, and since then, it's been good.

Right?

YES!, PS3 gamer playing Demons souls at the mo, frustrating.

lol, I told you. Not many will admit it though. That shit is hard. It's not cute. It's not fun. It is an angry time vampire that requires everything you've ever gave gaming, and the only reason it's good, is because you have such a sense of achievement when you beat it, you feel superior to other gamers. It's a spiteful evil glee that is fantastic, but it's not fun.

It's ass hard and frusteratingly impossible without the right strategies from the internet.

I have never once asserted, assumed, or thought that Zelda was a bad game. It's just not for me, and that's what I mean when I don't like it.

I mean, it's ok to not like good games or to like bad games. That's where tastes come into to play. I don't think everyone should like Valkyria Chronicles, but I do think everyone should recognize that it's a well made game. The same is true, for nearly all of the games I love.

Don't worry Winston... I'll help you out.  Also for the reason of simply I can't let something like this go untouched.

Oh wow this is just a mess.  Well obviously hasty generalization fallacy.  Assuming that because Zelda is a prominent game and that all gamers are required to like it is simply an atrocious way to format an argument.  Well atrocious becuase it isn't logical.  But you could take it further that it's an appeal to tradition fallacy because just because Zelda has been considered a great game and something gamer's enjoy doesn't mean that is to be taken as the truth now. 

But you further the argument by a bad analogy fallacy.  Creating cereal and being a chef has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with being a gamer and liking Zelda.  Actually the parallels don't even match so fundamentally it doesn't make sense.   Same for the rest of your comparisions.  Analogies have to be sensical meaning they need to relate in a way.  Using diversion tools such as an appeal to "common knowledge" analogy form is not a way to further your argument. 

The whole of your argument stands as "Zelda is a pinnacle of gaming, thus to be in gaming you are required to like Zelda".  It's quite clear to understand why that doesn't work.  And appeal to emotion fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.  It tries to assert their being a truth in Zelda being a great game and then asserting a truth that is a standard for a gamer, and then be a standard for gaming in general.  Thus it's a composition fallacy as well you move from the parts to the whole.  Just because something is a great game doesn't mean you can assert it as something as great for all gamers or something as great in the entire industry. 

I'm a huge Zelda fan so obviously I don't do this out of hate for the series.  I simply do this out of necessity for logic and your argument doesn't posses it in anyway.  I suggest you try to find a fundamental way in asserting Zelda as one of the pinnacle of the gaming industry and then relating that on to how you judge the validity of a gamer.  You'll find really quick there is no logical way of doing that because you even if you can do the first you can't move it to the second.  Gamers aren't determined necessarily by what they like.  If anything determined by how much they play and what they play.  And considering he's played Zelda, your argument would end there. 

if it was co-op i'd get excited.

Given this game was announced 4 years before the 4th edition rules were available, I really don't think that had much impact on their decision. I think the fact that not paying to license D&D rules when you can easily come up with your own (especially if you've been in the business and developed before) is a better decision as it means more profits.

Im actually more excited now that I know it doesnt....i'd rather play a game focused on single player rather than tacking it on as an afterthought.  This generation has too frequently discarded storytelling for frag fests.