>>7892478Alright then, so you're not a hypocrite and have no problem with me saying:
>>7891171>I wouldn't call them notorious since their target audience is perfectly satisfied with them. So because PAKs had a large audience and were perfectly satisfied by them, hence being made and supported for years and years, they're not notorious for looking awful?
That's some flawed thinking.
Just because fanboys eat it up, doesn't mean they weren't shat on by everyone else.
But yes, somethings are so bad that even the fanboys themselves won't eat it, despite the hundreds years of effort they gave into defending how bad it looks.
I'm glad this has been cleared up then.
