you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Correct.

14 years of development does not imply good or efficient. There's no secret about it, keeping it on permanent development gives them a job for as long as they can keep the grift going. You're implying everyone thinks the game is good, worthwhile or innovative, I do not agree on most of those points. That said again both things can be true.

No, you've added your opinion and tried to pass it off as objective fact.

It doesn't need to be that deep, it's just fraud with a fan base which could be said of a lot of games just none this expensive or developed as long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

    14 years of development does not imply good or efficient.

    Where did I say that?

    You're implying everyone thinks the game is good, worthwhile or innovative

    Again, where did I say that?

    I'm honestly wondering if you replied to the wrong comment by mistake, because I can't see how you got any of that from what I said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago* (2 children)

    Literally "good at everything they do" aside from stick to a release date obviously.

    All you had to do was look for the word good in your comment boss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    You mean the paragraph that was very clearly written as sarcasm to highlight the inherent contradiction in your theory? Would that be the part you're referring to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 hours ago

    I do not think any of those things therefore they weren't in my argument, that's your argument at that point. It's a red herring you wrote yourself, it is odd you're confused by it though.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)