>>42218490Time for /vp/ to learn the difference between a real argument and one that's clearly fucking stupid when you use reductio ad absurdum.
When you declare an argument, like "gen 3 is bad because you can't visit Johto," you're really stating facts and then drawing a conclusion. Let's look at one of those facts.
"A game sequel that cuts content is bad." This is the basis of the argument. Now let's look at some random list of popular game sequels.
Mario 64, Halo 2, Final Fantasy 7, Morrowind, SMT Nocturne, Ocarina of Time, DMC3, Uncharted 2, Mega Man 2.
None of these include all the content from the previous games. If that claim is true, all those games are bad.
That's absurd, so the claim must be untrue. Therefore, the argument falls apart and whoever came up with it is a dipshit.
Try using this simple test next time you're about to hit the post button. The rest of the board will thank you for it.
