I was trying to save space.
Yes, because those flaws aren't relevant to everyone and you don't get to decide if that makes them a "real fan" or not. Nobody gets to decide that, anyone who calls themselves a fan of something is a fan, plain and simple.
It's hard to stay chill when the original non-chill person continues to put down people who feel differently and writes off everything I say as a "fallacy" and "strawman" with barely an explanation as to why while poorly defending your insults. If you feel confident about your own opinions, DON'T use phrasing that shows you consider yourself superior in some way to those with different opinions (because by labeling some as "real fans" and others as not, you are basically creating a class system in your head. Over a fucking video game, mind you).
Now, do me a favor and spare me the terminology and please actually address the following. Don't skip it or just say "strawman" and "fallacy" instead of answering the question, please just answer the following: I love Bloodborne. I platinumed the game and DLC. I have two art prints of the Hunter and Eileen the Crow (and would have a Lady Maria figure if it didn't cost $500, geezus why?), the card game, and the OST. I feel like that MORE than makes me AT THE VERY LEAST a fan of the game. But the game runs at 30 FPS. Some people didn't like that. I personally wasn't bothered by it. So by your general stance I'm apparently not a "real fan" of Bloodborne since there was a technical issue with the game that did not affect my enjoyment of it. Do....do you see the problem with your mindset here? Because I'm about done with this conversation since it feels like I'm getting nowhere with you.
Been super busy over the past few weeks which is why I couldn't respond with a more lengthy comment. That said, I'm rather surprised that you haven't caught the discrepancy of your initial response to my "real fans" comment. My thesis was that "real fans" want to see improvements of products they like. You took offense because you viewed that as an exclusionary statement, i.e. I do not see you as a "real" Pokemon fan.
How is that a discrepancy, though? Well, if you fit into my profile (regardless if it is subjective or objective), you would've instead, argued that Sword and Shield did provide enough improvements. And heck, there are some valid arguments to be made that Sw/Sh did improve on certain aspects over previous games. The towns look great, imo albeit cancelled out by the lack of exploration opportunities. However, you did not do that. You immediately responded with a non-chill argument. You lost your cool and resorted to projection because "Omg, he just said an exclusionary statement!" even though you may actually be among the "real fans", but have a different metric of overall improvement.
And the response of yours above is cringey virtue signalling along with the continued strawman. Your rebuttal only works if the person in question actually made the arguments you are trying to refute. I didn't claim superiority. That was something that you made up in your head. Bloodborne is a bad example because it was a new IP at the time and while it is based on Dark Souls, it also took a different approach and adopted a new "high risk, high reward" system. And people liked the new overall approach and saw that as a net improvement over Dark Souls. From Software adapted some aspects of that approach in Dark Souls 3 thanks to the positive reception of Bloodborne. Pokemon, on the other hand, has been around since the 1990's with several games, including spinoffs. We were told that the National Dex won't exist because new models and animations were being made from the ground up. That turned out not to be true. The problem did that end there as modders have fixed the poor textures of the trees and ground without performance penalties, fixed the missing on/off EXP share option, fixed the Windows mouse oversight, and managed to import removed Pokemon into Sw/Sh albeit far from perfectly. Overall, it is this apples-to-oranges comparison that makes your overall argument weak and not worthy of serious consideration.
I'll just repeat this again. A bunch of amateurs managed to make Sw/Sh look better without causing performance regressions and fixed missing features/bugs. Importation of removed Pokemon is already underway even though the games haven't reached their 1 month anniversary yet. An amateur animator was able to replicate Tail Whip in mere minutes and make improved versions in an hour or two. Compare that to Game Freak who has around 140
experienced developers.
Fact of the matter is that Sw/Sh had the absolute opportunity to make several steps forward, but Game Freak dropped the ball, big time. And Sw/Sh cost 50% more than the 3DS Pokemon games that had less bugs (e.g. no Windows mouse, less pop-in) and whose graphics could be excused to the 3DS's hardware limitations. What does that say about the value of Sw/Sh relative to previous games? What will happen to the value of Sw/Sh if modders managed to import all the removed Pokemon without caveats?
Doom85 likes the game then they ARE the fans?
