>>37036888Says the one covering the goalposts in imaginary invisibility cloaks. Let's simplify this for your poor beleaguered brain cell. The argument was:
>open worlds are shitTo which I essentially responded:
>open world doesn't have to be the kind of trash you're thinking aboutTo which you've responded:
>but all those shit ones you just mentioned are garbage existWhen nowhere there did I say it would or wouldn't be. I simply said it doesn't have to be. Which you obviously agree with but desperately want to be right so you tried to obfuscate the point. A winner is me.
