>>56013914>"BW2" and "Platinum" aren't "gens"as already stated, gamewars are functionally identical to genwars
>Those games could be hypotheticalBut it's obviously not what the post implied. It's implying games that are playable you fucking retard.
>You're pitting routesStopped right there. This is allowed because it's a perfectly rational discussion about routes only. You vermin devolved it into genwarfaggotry.
>neither was the post talking about BW2You mean the one that actually compares it directly to other games in a way that fosters zero conversation outside of "game shit because I said so, play these other games instead please" as opposed to "let's discuss how routes changed"
>substance has nothing to do with whether or not a post I instigating a flamewarYES IT DOES you fucking retard. Posts are judged ENTIRELY by their substance. That's what they are. If the substance of a post is basically a call to genwars with no other response feasible, then it's instigating genwars. That's quite literally the ONLY way to judge the thing.
>BW2 post could have easily led to a discussionNo it couldn't because it just said "it's shit because I said so". Had you actually articulated a discussion (or not blatantly pit gens/games against one another) like all the other examples you're seething about, it wouldn't be considered a genwar.
>That always beingAnother valid factor, yes. In order for A to be B, multiple conditions must be satisfied. You can't just apply a single common condition to any other post and expect it to also be genwarring.
