Zucas said:
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. |
It's like saying Big Mama's House 2 is better than The Godfather and calling yourself a movie critic.
I mean, anyone can call themselves whatever they want. I can call myself the president. Doesn't mean I accept it. There are certain conditions that must be met. One of them is not hating the Legend of freakin' Zelda.
That said, everything is subjective. However, that includes my opinion and you ain't changing it by playing word games. When you don't like Zelda, your opinion on gaming goes out the window, imo. When you don't like The Godfather, your opinion on movies goes out the window, imo. You're a game player, sure. You're a movie watcher, sure. But are you a gamer? Are you a critic? Maybe in the loosest sense of the word. Everyone is a critic, everyone who ever picked up a mouse and keyboard is a "gamer."
However, I come from a time when the word "gamer" meant something. IMO, if you hate Zelda, that ain't it.
When you don't love Zelda, when you hated Fallout 3, and when you think the GAME Demon Souls is better than the COMPANY Bioware, what the hell am I supposed to think?
Huh?
Speak on that one Zucas.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
