>>56292979>You can see exactly how big the map isbut you won't know the pacing and how much to do there is between cities. You still didn't disprove this argument
>different contextthis doesn't change the fact that her gym fight is redundant since you already proved you can beat her. You still didn't disprove this argument
>How?Because scripting more of the player's actions game makes it less of a game and more of a novel.You still didn't disprove this point.
>You didn't prove his motivations as shallow"I want to make a perfect beautiful world by making the world irradiated and lifeless, asides from ugly grunts" is pretty shallow. Now prove that isn't.
>The game explains it.Cool. Now tell me where they came from. I want to hear it from you specifically.
>they were expanded upon>repeats the same surface level exposition that isn't expanded uponAll of those details should have implications and further details, but they don't. Therefore, they aren't expanded upon properly. You still didn't disprove this point.
>The gameplay is the sameExcept those things made the gameplay more trivial and reductive. You still didn't disprove this argument.
>Able to use the pokemonWrong. That's not what spotlight is. Please give me the actual meaning of spotlight so we can see if the game suffers from misusing it.
>So is "I think the Earth is flat"No, that's a statement that's able to be disproven. Liking one game over another is an opinion that can be argued, but not objectively disproven.
>Source?see
>>56292871>How does it matterThe standard is different for new gen games, which need to introduce a fresh are region, a fresh new roster, a fresh new cast of characters, a fresh new set of features, and overall need to feel fresh. Hence being called a new generation. A sequel, for example, expands upon something that already exists.
If a Star Wars sequel has Star Wars things from previous movies, it's good. But if a new series about fairies has Star Wars things, it's bad.
