Kein
You provided an argument? Can I ask you...

I meant argument as in defending a position in a debate. See, for example (sorry Flixerflax :hihi: ), definitions 2, 3, 4 and 5 here. Arguments can certainly be made with facts, but facts are not required (definition 4 mentions statements and reasons used for or against a point, as well as facts).

When debating a scientific theory, or anything else with an absolute truth, facts are of course the best means to form an argument. Even then, where there are theories without enough empirical evidence to prove or disprove, scientists have certainly argued that the elegant beauty or simplicity of a mathematical model means there must be something fundamentally correct about it, etc.


To make an argument, you need rely on facts.

Speaking of which, where are the facts that the Black Ring drove the dragons into hiding?
Or is this just "your fantasies and make up"?

Or are hard facts just not involved when debating two different suggestions about the reasoning behind something that happened in the back story of a game?


It is fun how quickly your speculation and assumptions became an argument

The process of putting forth speculation and/or assumptions and debating them is an argument.


Yeah, right. I love when ppl use "simplify conception tactics" :p
let's use your weapon against you: Call fo Duty. We're a soldier here, we play as a soldier, we play the role. CoD == RPG? In the end, we save the world (and not really metaphorically) too! Same design, huh?

Not that it matters, but some people do use that definition and argue that any game where you take on a role makes it an RPG. Obviously this is broadens the category enough that it becomes meaningless, and most people have additional criteria (character development / customization, levels, stats/skills, etc).

Back on point, I was not simplifying anything. I made a comment that the player controlling a character or small group to save the world against a powerful opponent (usually accompanied by a large group) is pretty common in RPGs. You responded that DAO is more realistic because you gather an army for the final battle. I agreed that that was a more plausible scenario than D2:ED's plot (though there are valid reasons for some stuff the Black Ring does or fails to do that may seem illogical when first encountered).

However, when I argued they were still essentially the same thing, what I was trying to explain was that the army in DAO is essentially cosmetic. The army doesn't do anything without you, unless you finish quests or trigger certain plot points where something is meant to happen, so there is nothing fundamentally different with the plot mechanisms. It is still you saving the world, and the army may as well be a pet or NPC you can add to your party.


DAO's plot/stroy is different. There is a lot of tiny differences on the DAO's picture with uses teh same canvas (genre) as Divinity 2 does. But those differences is what makes DAO special, different from Divinity2 and better in some cases.

We may actually have come close to an agreement... I was arguing that the differences were tiny, not that those differences couldn't have a significant impact on the game overall. In theory I can say having an army is more plausible, but when actually playing a game, my first reaction whenever I get help is pretty much always "Hey, you bastards! Stop stealing my experience points!". Maybe when I build a new computer and play DAO (no Xbox demo, so obviously they don't want me to buy that version) I will appreciate the subtle differences as much as you do, but I will still very likely argue that the fundamental 'save the world' plot design is essentially the same.


And you telling me that level of realism of those two game equal, lol.

I never commented on the level of realism of the games overall, and always conceded that gathering an army was a more plausible plot device than going after the bad guys alone (though there are reasons in D2:ED why this was more effective than you would expect initially).


Sometimes, the blind fanboism is like a fog - you can't see anything.

Really?? Is it impossible to honestly hold an opinion that differs from yours?
Some people can debate a topic and simply agree to disagree...