#counterargument

[i-hate-network-programming]

thesis: energy is transphobic.

reasoning: i am trierd as fucuuucckkkkk

[stolasbuckzo]

Few controversial issues I would like to bring up:

Loo Loo Land:

I'd say he WAS, but once Blitz entered the picture his lust for him made him fall off the rails. Now he's at the point where he invites Blitz to Loo Loo Land to flirt with him despite him coming up with this trip to make Octavia happy - the same Octavia who feels that the whole affair is tearing her home apart.

It is CLEARLY stated, factually, in Stolas’s bio that he had unknowingly — the similar to treating Blitz like a plaything later on — pushed his daughter away, due to flirting with his monthly ONS (one night stand). And yet the minute Stolas realised his mistake he dropped the act of NEEDING a bodyguard and leaves LLL with Octavia in his arms acknowledging that she WAS too old for the theme park.

👏🏻 HE 👏🏻 ACKNOWLEDGED 👏🏻 IT! And y’all — no one in particular just getting way too excited now, ignore the block letters lol 😂) — are saying Stolas is a muthafuckin bad parent for not realising this? The mistake he had now realised he made?

Okay, so he was also a little uncomfortable with Octavia’s passion for taxidermy, dead stuffed animals, but at least he supports her of it regardless (THAT is a definition of 'good dad' okay, yeah, Stolas won’t always get it right, I mean what parent knows everything?

But it doesn’t mean Stolas doesn’t CARE about Octavia. Not like Stella, from what I’ve seen canonically, between 2x01 (child neglect) and 2x02 — I’ll discuss that later furthermore — which wasn’t shown anything positive, like the latter had, or negative at the thought of her daughter nicking her father’s grimoire and going to the human world

(Most likely if it had been brought up Stella would’ve verbally abused Stolas rather than lecturing their daughter who actually needed it)

Also, for the fact that try as he might Stolas never really had a paternalistic role model. Since his own father — King Paimon — was either too busy for him or would forget his childrens' name etc

I’d be lying if I said I really wanted the case, ideally, where Stolas invited Blitz to come to Loo Loo Land for them a hang out — but NOT on a father/daughter day that was majority of the problem — or perhaps to get some paternal advice from him on HOW to act like a proper dad or even wanted to slowly introduce his daughter to the guy he was sleeping with (still not a great idea but you do you boo 😂) and his potential partner once he had divorced Stella

But that didn’t happen which I’m kinda of disappointed about because that DOES correlate with why Blitz was feeling like a “plaything” — not then, because he didn’t have any feelings, but later on in 1x06 onwards — and it also had increased Octavia’s abandonment issues / separation anxiety

So it really didn’t gain any favours from anyone, besides Stolas, because he could hang out with the two people he loves the most in the same place.

Reference:

Seeing Stars (2x02):

After Octavia runs off, Stolas COMPLETELY FORGETS ABOUT HER once he and Blitz are alone and he simps for his acting

In my opinion, I feel like 👏🏻 Stolas 👏🏻 did 👏🏻 not 👏🏻 forget 👏🏻 about 👏🏻 Octavia 👏🏻(Hell! She was his main priority — not as a “precautionary heir” but as his muthafuckin DAUGHTER — to the point of NOT calling Blitz “Blitzy". In fact the former spent MORE time worrying about her safety in the human world

Okay, yes, Stolas did flirt with Blitz ONCE to help him through stage fright — who was hyperventilating and looked to be on the verge of a panic attack) — and had reassured him:

“Blitz, if your performance on stage is half as good as it is in bed, you'll leave them…. breathless.” Stolas subsiding Blitz’s fears, whilst making his interests clear

I don’t particularly call this “simping” it was ONE MINUTE (not even that) of it, as opposed to S1 where that was definitely over the top “simping” entirely because Stolas, factually, had put Blitz on a pedestal above everyone else (yes, even, briefly, his own daughter), but to be fair, he didn’t know how to flirt in a more, what we call, “appropriate” way, because it’s not like he had any experience with his sexuality because he was thrown into marriage from the get-go so, of course, he had gotten so excited that Blitz — his crush since they were kids — came back into his life, but, also was partially worried about him leaving again, so it was almost a codependency thing

But! We are NOT talking a talking about his “season personality” back to the topic at hand; (S2) Stolas certainly wasn’t going to just leave Blitz there filled with anxiety. Okay, yes, after the latter was sure he gotten through to him and hurriedly pushed him into the room, affectionately called him “darling”, and wished him luck.

* But what I’m saying is at least Stolas 👏🏻 isn’t 👏🏻 MEAN 👏🏻 or 👏🏻 SELFISH 👏🏻 about the whole thing because it’s not in his nature (unless it comes to Stella lol; a guy can ONLY be patient and kind for so long)

While Octavia is alone and lost on Earth.

(Part 1)

That wasn’t the case though, so, in my opinion, statement is inaccurate. Okay, yes, Octavia WAS alone and lost to begin with alone — that’s the whole storyline of this episode — but like every falling action to almost resolution — Loona, eventually, tracked her down and gave her sisterly talk about their dads

“Sometimes... sometimes it's not as simple as that. This kind of shit gets messy, and everybody's got issues, especially dads. And sometimes they fuck up -- well, all the time. But, that doesn't mean they don't care." Loona to Octavia talking about their dads

&

"Looking for you. I mean... try to cut your dad some slack. He may not always get it right, but... he's trying. That's more important than you think." Loona talking about Stolas.

(If Stolas’s first priority was HONESTLY Blitz as y’all claim… why would the former turn the human world upside down just to find Octavia? To me if he was prioritising he’d say “I could care less what happened to my daughter. She can look after herself, as long as I’m with you it’s fine” but he didn’t because that would most likely come from S1 undeveloped version of Stolas

(Okay I was exaggerating maybe not even S1 would he say that. That’s more of a Stella comment but y’all get what I’m saying…)

Point is… there’s a HUGE character development between S1 and S2 Stolas, the latter, is TRYING to do the right thing and get HIS life sorted, the way he wants it by; Divorcing Stella. To respect Blitz — calling him by his preferred name — and hopes to become his partner, later in life, once everything is resolved between them.

I think what really bugs me is that people just remember negatively — especially if they’re anti-Stolas, which just makes it “easier” for them to hate him — that he’s snobbish, sexually deprived, cringey, and just really no better than the Goetia family — like the Stella’s and Paimon’s of this world — and their indifference towards commoners

I feel like everyone is just remembering the pilot — the WORST version of himself — rather that the one that is actually currently being progressive and doing his absolute BEST to have the fulfil his life that he wants and actually deserves, despite having an abusive (ex) wife — who stomped it every time Stolas got a chance to be happy — AND to deal with his feelings for Blitz, who had rejected him, because of his ongoing issues

— She also could've been kidnapped by D.H.O.R.K.S for all anyone knew

(Part 2)

As for the D.H.O.R.K.S thing? You’re right. That COULD have happened, yet it didn’t, so I’m not entirely sure where that came from. I WOULD have been be very surprised if Viv brought them back, since they hadn’t been seen since 1x06. And yet, I feel like, if she had gone down that path…

A. That would have been pointless because she hasn’t brought the agents back since S1; inconsistency in my opinion, since they were painted as “important” villains of the story or at least that’s what I got

B. I think that would have been more exciting rather than “oh no my dad is busy so I’ll just run away AGAIN!” which is something I feel like is a repeat of Loo Loo Land and the upcoming 2x12 episode

Now that I honestly think about…

It’s most likely that Stolas WAS vaguely referring to the D.H.O.R.K.S agents — when he voiced how worried he was about Octavia being in danger to Blitz — or it was just in general, which is more understandable as both his daughter and his ONLY precautionary heir.

“Blitz, we don't have time for this. Via could be anywhere. She COULD be in danger.” Stolas to Blitz worried for Octavia’s safety in the human world

Truth Seekers (1x06):

Stolas and Blitz’s relationship is based on Stockholm syndrome (and it’s practically the same as Valentino and Angel’s or at least has the same ambience of it)

Stolitz being “Stockholm Syndrome” relationship

1. That would actually require Stolas (NOT the agents who had) to have physically, as himself, kidnap Blitz and get him to fall in love because of the manipulative attention and sweet nothings that is being given

And before y’all @me no “darling” DOES NOT count because that’s just an English thing regardless for friends, family, or lovers

As or the “Stolas gives the grimoire to Blitz in order for him to continue his business” thing sounds awfully more like a prostitution thing rather than Stockholm

(Which someone has oh-so kindly made me realise that “prostitution” CAN lead to Stockholm syndrome 🤦🏼‍♀️)

I genuinely think that Blitz DOES want love from Stolas — as stated by Moxxie when he said that he craved intimacy yet fears it — but he’s not allowing HIMSELF to even though Stolas had given him all the signals of “I want you to” but struggles with communication and understanding that some people might actually love him (friends & family)

I think he’s also scared he’s going to let Stolas down or hurt (a little late for that I know) him the same as Verosika etc and subconsciously doesn’t want want to do that, so, instead, he puts him at an arms length for “protection” on both their parts and lashes out so he can become “unlovable” because it’s the only way he knows from being in a dysfunctional family)

Especially for the FACT that Blitz knew he let Verosika down with their relationship and you can definitely, maybe, see it in his eyes during his trip when she comes up to him saying that he treated her like shit and what a horrible boyfriend he had been etc (no matter how much I loathe her I’m not gonna diss the logic of this)

Also at the beginning of his Blitz’s drug trip we can see that Verosika, Fizzarolli and Striker were were all in the dark spot, most likely representing toxicity and negativity

+ Moxxie (who was half between dark and light)

BUT Stolas was in the light… which most likely represented a healthy relationship and positivity

If he was REALLY that bad (as bad as Valentino) WHY wasn’t Stolas in the darkness with everyone else?

(2) Angel Dust & Valentino VS Stolas & Blitz:

Stolitz’s relationship and “ambience” is NOTHING like Valentino and Angel’s for one Stolas is NOT a rapist and he does NOT force himself onto Blitz whenever he wants to. I don’t care what y’all say about 2x01 that was completely CONSENSUAL but Stolas’s shyness was apparently mistaken for “I don’t want to do this”, so, of course, it came off as being SA’d

* If that was the case I’m pretty 💯 sure that if Stolitz, respectively, had sexually assaulted one another, both would be dead (well if Blitz has Angel-tipped bullets that is 😂)

The ONLY thing that is similar each other is the fact that a trippy version of Stolas — not the REAL one who’s way too affectionate to do that sort of thing; unless he had been put in a dominant (🥵) role — had pulled Blitz towards him, the same way Valentino had done to Angel Dust

👏🏻 THAT 👏🏻 IS 👏🏻 IT!

Interpretation:

Reality:

Not to mention there were two different facial expressions on their faces:

Hallucinogenic Stolas’s was sympathetic (if not a little mocking — and, so out of character, if it was the real one — when asking “are you afraid to love people, Blitzy?” but that was only because it was from Blitz’s interpretation of how he views him currently, thinking he viewed him nothing more than a “plaything” so, of course, he thought it was condescending), patient, and loving (three of them POSITIVE and one of them was negative, which wasn’t even all that bad because it was internal on the sufferer’s part

Which makes sense why Blitz accused Stolas — the real one — of treating him like it was anything more wanting to FUCK him (even though that was the kinda the deal)

Now, I understand that — as Loona said — “we all have our own issues”. Well, Blitz has them all the time because he was grown up with dysfunction from the get go and was probably told (and most likely shown) that he was unlovable as a child by his dad and that he’d always be a “fuck-up” and would damage other heathy relationships whether it’s friends, family, or even poetlovers.

Whilst Valentino’s intentions was to be sick, cruel, and that he didn’t CARE if he had hurt Angel verbally, sexually or physically

Stockholm syndrome? Yeah, right. Prostitution is more like it, which isn’t AS bad (in fact that’s the probably the LEAST thing you can do in Hell at least they — Stolitz — can and will be together. But not if it’s Stockholm. Period.

[delphinidin4]

If any of you college students out there need to know how to write a good counterargument... watch some John Oliver.

Every single time, he discusses opposing viewpoints, and does so in a fair and reasonable manner without letting it detract from his point. It usually sounds like this:

“Now, you may be thinking, ‘But John, [opposing viewpoint]!’ And you would be right: [clarification of that viewpoint]. However, [reasonable response to counterargument].”

Every video. It’s masterful. His writers are fantastic. They allow for a variety of opinions and beliefs, admit when those opposing them have good points, and STILL manage to support the original argument. That’s part of why John Oliver’s SO persuasive. Deep dives into research + fully examining the complexity of an issue + good use of counterarguments = really convincing arguments!

[sleepydrummer]

I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

[crackimagines]

In all honesty in Ch 3 of your evil!Byleth AU, they could've just swayed the civilians by telling them the truth about both Rhea and Edelgard

...Huh.

[ace-pidge]

Been seeing this theory going around that the Altean colony isn’t real because it’s housed inside a dome similar to the virtual Altea-scape that Allura visits Alfor in from S1

The argument is that everything is simulated inside the dome and the environments aren’t real, there are no other Alteans, and Romelle is in fact just a fabrication of Haggar’s, another trap (based on this from the old show)

While this is an interesting idea I personally highly doubt it holds any weight whatsoever. For one thing the argument that everything inside the dome is simulated and nothing is real doesn’t hold water. We’ve seen the team use a blend of real and simulated environments to house Kaltenecker

So it’s totally believable that while the backgrounds in the colony are simulated to give the impression of freedom and open space, the actual substance--the buildings, people, forests--are very much real

Not to mention, Keith, Krolia and Romelle leave that dome and go visit the moon, where they find the lost Alteans (and they’re definitely Alteans--you can see the cheek marks--not some random aliens that look like Alteans to keep up the lie)

Even IF it’s true that everything inside the dome is a simulated lie and Romelle (actually Haggar) is the only being of substance in there, these Alteans on the moon had to come from somewhere. The fact that they’re there at all gives at least partial credence to Romelle’s story: that some Alteans survived the destruction of Altea

And finally, there’s Lotor himself, who recognized Romelle right away, and straight up admitted to it with his own words

“I’ve dedicated my life to preserving Altean culture. Now that we have unlocked the quintessence field, all of your people, who would have been hunted down long ago had it not been for my intervention, can live in peace. Were some lives lost in the process? Yes. But they were martyrs to a noble cause. I sacrificed a few to preserve the future for millions”

If the entire thing with the colony and Romelle is a fabrication by Haggar there is no way Lotor would know so much about it, given how much he hates her. So while I’m not saying there isn’t possibly something more to the colony, I am saying that this theory I’ve been seeing on my dash holds no water at all. I’m more inclined to believe Romelle’s story is more or less exactly the truth (or the truth as she’s pieced it together), given what we see and Lotor’s confirmation

[epherwillc]

Counter-/subtrope of humans are space orcs: aliens are space elves/fairies. Tall, graceful creatures that somehow draw humans like flies. Short aliens that are well known for their advanced, almost magical technology that, by extension, is far more advanced than humans could have dreamed. Humanoid aliens with wings that ascribe to certain courts, behaviors, and technologies. Aliens who weave the planet's flora and fauna into new living things. This meme doesn't really go over aliens much. Give me alien space elves.

[tonyacatte]

Videogamedunkey, Game Critics, and you.

Some guy named "videogamedunkey" made a review lambasting game critics. I watched it, and had lots of issues. Some of these are issues I've talked about with friends (and in other places) who seem to misunderstand what games criticism is.

So I'm gonna try to do a bit-by-bit comparison on what I find wrong with it, and why I think he's got a lot of things wrong in an attempt to please ~gamers~ who just love slamming game sites because they like a game they don't for XYZ reasons.

I encourage you to watch the video here so you have an understanding of what I'm talking about (and also to make sure that you see both sides of this.) That being said, let's go.

- "The first problem I have with gaming outlets is how their opinions are so decentralized."

Here's the first problem I have with Dunkey's video: ignorance. Before this, and throughout, he points out how gaming sites are harder to pinpoint a voice compared to Youtubers, which 90% of the time are just one person.

If you're gonna pay attention to any site's staff, the onus is on you to figure out who you like or dislike. Every site will have the name of the critic who reviewed it, and usually their name will also link to reviews that person has done. If not, it isn't hard to punch their name, the site they run and "review" into a Google search.

Only fools just pay attention to the site the review is hosted on and not the person who wrote it.

- (inserts clips between four guys on a couch on IGN saying "Sonic was never good, right?" between people who reviewed said Sonic games and liked them, including one for Sonic 4: Episode 1 which most people hated)

This is what I mean. Dunkey is trying to do the "this is IGN as a whole" thing. Those four people on the couch were likely *not* the person who reviewed Sonic Colors and liked it.

A lot of people do this, not just Dunkey. They just say "oh IGN gave it this" when in reality they should be like "Daemon Hatfield gave it this." Nobody credits film reviews to the newspaper its ran, they credit it to the person who reviewed it.

Again, it's your responsibility to figure out who said that Sonic 4 Episode 1 was good (Hilary Goldstein, for the record) and if that opinion lines up with yours. Doing the thing Dunkey did and splice review footage with the four people on the couch, none of which are Hilary Goldstein, is disingenuous.

For the record, I played Sonic 4 Episode 1 and thought it was hot garbage, so I figure that me and Hilary Goldstein don't see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. Mostly.

- "When you watch a video by ProJared, or TotalBiscuit, or Angry Joe, you know who you're getting. Now pick a site like IGN and it's like you just entered the fucking lottery."

No? The key thing is that you need to figure out which critics line up with your own, or at least understand which critics you can disagree with yet still respect.

Let's say TotalBiscuit was just one critic in a site like The Cynical Brit which has 10 different reviewers. I would assume that you, along with others, wouldn’t have too much difficulty knowing a TotalBiscuit review from another’s.

Doing what he just said is a hand-waving "I ain't got time for this shit" excuse. If you're not gonna put in the effort to figure out who on IGN you like or dislike, then why criticize them?

There's a bit of irony here where he almost got it right: He points out after this quote that reviews compile the opinions of one person so you better understand that person's taste. He almost gets it. He's being ignorant here because he refuses to find a critic that he likes or dislikes because it's one person out of many.

- "You don't have to see eye to eye on every game to put your trust in someone."

I'm not criticizing him here, but this is the most important thing about criticism as a whole. Jeff Gerstmann doesn't like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island while I thought it was cool shit. Yet I still respect the hell out of him in spite of differing opinions.

This is something a lot of people get wrong and it bothers me. The closest you'll ever find someone seeing eye-to-eye with you on reviews is if you cloned yourself. The key is to find a person (or people) that you can put trust into when it comes to a review.

Let's say you followed 6 people who all have differing likes and dislikes, yet there's one game they universally agree on is good. That says that you can put faith that the game is gonna be good when you play it. There's no guarantee though: There's games that came out that the general consensus was good but I actually hated for various reasons. Like Far Cry 2.

- "But when you're consistently wrong" (he compares the score of IGN's review of Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze to multiple Call of Duty games) "That is when you become Armond White."

(for those unaware, Armond White is a film critic that tends to go against the grain when it comes to films. He's the only person who didn't like Toy Story 3 according to Rotten Tomatoes.)

Again, trying to mesh IGN as an overall voice, rather than paying attention to who reviewed each game.

Also he goes into the obligatory "THEY BASHED ON A GAME I LIKED WHILE PRAISING EACH CALL OF DUTY GAME EVERY YEAR." I'm not saying you can't criticize Call of Duty, it's just a boring, terrible argument now. It comes off as an elitist "I'm a *real gamer*, I don't play that Call of Duty casual shit" argument and it makes me consider your opinions less.

Granted, I stopped paying heavy attention to Call of Duty after Black Ops II, five years ago. I can only go by hearsay and my experiences playing some of the more recent games during free weekends. It's okay if you have played the games and have an actual, legitimate criticism of Activision's factory approach to the franchise, but I think you have to have played it, not just use it as some crutch for a half-assed argument.

Bonus points for using the shitty God Hand vs. Imagine Party Babyz review image. You can't compare God Hand to Imagine Party Babyz, by the way. They're two different games, in two different genres, on two different platforms, reviewed by TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. This isn't apples and oranges, this is more like apples and tofu in which both are "edible things," but the similarities end there.

The key is that you have to compare to the reviewers other work. While Chris Roper, the reviewer of the infamous God Hand review, may have been off base (I haven't played God Hand so I don't know if it's good), other reviews he did, such as Uncharted 2, seem to be right in line with everyone else.

It goes back to what I said earlier how Jeff Gerstmann hates Yoshi's Island. It's an outlier. Roger Ebert hated the Beverly Hills Cop movies, I loved them. Still respected the critics regardless.

- "What the fuck was the point of [this review of Super Metroid]? I could find all this shit on the back of the box and find it exciting!"

Dunkey is literally cherry picking parts of IGN's review of the game hitting Virtual Console (check it here) for going into facts. I follow xkcd's "ten thousand" rule: Not everybody knows what Super Metroid is. Naturally there's gonna be a lot of points where the reviewer has to point out what things the game itself does that may be obvious to some of us, but not all of us.

- "Even a game like Mass Effect: Andromeda will still get away with a 7 out of 10."

In this image, instead of using a review score for IGN like he did for the comparisons at this point, he uses the Metacritic score average. Why he did this instead of using IGN's actual score (a 7.7) is beyond me, as that would've at least made his argument a bit more solid.

I figure his argument is going on about how the average for a game is a 7, but that’s something for another debate.

- (At this point, he talks about GameSpot's Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy review) "If you know GameSpot, you know they're not exactly capable when it comes to platformers." (Inserts a video of GameSpot's New Super Mario Bros. Wii review, talking about the difficulty)

Look, not everything's piss easy, Dunkey. My mom (RIP) couldn't beat NSMB Wii without using the Super Guide, and she wasn't a gaming veteran. Even I had difficulty with some of the levels. Just because it's easy for you, doesn't mean it's easy for everyone else.

Also DIFFERENT PEOPLE SEVERAL YEARS APART REVIEWED THESE GAMES AND YOU'RE DOING THE "REPRESENTING THE SITE AS A WHOLE" THING AGAIN

- "First off, I actually completed the fucking game, [Peter Brown of GameSpot] played halfway through and put up his review, what the fuck"

Look. Crash Bandicoot isn't a game that's gonna drastically change from the last stage compared to the first. Even the third island doesn't bring anything new that you didn't already learn from the first two.

This is a problem people have: "I MUST FINISH IT TO REVIEW IT!" is not a requirement to review something. Would you have given Gene Siskel shit for walking out halfway through Black Sheep and pointing that out on Siskel & Ebert? That's a film that isn't gonna change his mind if he had stuck around.

If Peter Brown played halfway through these HD remasters of Crash Bandicoot, and thought he had played enough of each game to form an opinion, that works! Keep in mind some games are 30, 40, sometimes over 100 hours long. Do you want reviewers to play to 100% just so they can say "This is a great game, yes" even though their mind was probably made up halfway through and 10 hours in? Do you need to play the entirety of Ride to Hell: Retribution to review it even though the first hour or two already gives you a good impression on how bad it is?

- (Insert cherry picked clips of IGN reviewing New Super Mario Bros. U's criticisms and shows the score as 9.1) "WHAT THE FU-"

I'm just gonna link to IGN's video review of NSMBU here. When you just look at Dunkey's clips, yeah, it seems tonally inconsistent, doesn't it? But if you actually watch the review in question, Rich George does a fairly easy-to-understand "This is good but there's problems" throughout the review.

It is entirely possible to like something, yet still have complaints with it. This is something I think Dunkey has difficulty grasping: Not everything is black or white, good or bad. That also applies to games. Some of my favorite games of all time, like Half-Life, Super Mario Bros. 3, Sonic 3 & Knuckles, etc have problems with them. They're still good games, though! That’s how the review comes out.

I will admit that I’m probably getting angry at nothing, especially getting mad at video games (cue the frog from that KC Green comic here). But this is something I hear time and time and time again about critics.

Dunkey is one of many people that are partially ignorant about games criticism. There are points in that entire video where he gets it: That one must find a critic they trust and respect even if they disagree, that sort of thing.

But the whole video comes off as “Pfft, *games criticism*, amirite?” and it’s just lame. All the things I mentioned are things that come up constantly. It’s an old, tired argument at this point.

It’s important we hear from many, many different voices on things, so we get perspectives on what games we like or dislike. Nobody’s gonna perfectly line up with you, but the key is respect. Jeff Gerstmann, Jim Sterling, Chris Roper, all these people whom I respect for their opinions even if I disagree with them in parts.

That is the key. I hope y’all read and understand what I’m getting at, and feel free to put a response if you think I’m wrong and sucking game site cock or something, idk.

(On a side note: Finding all this research on IGN was a bit of an exhaustive measure. I’m more a GameSpot and Giant Bomb kind of guy, so while doing the research for this I probably read IGN more than I have in a long time. And this research took me a half-hour, even after taking a break. It’s not that hard. I think.)