Please tell me that you are not saying that a consensus has any and I do mean any hold on determining truth. Are you trying to say the opposite because then that would support my original statement. Clarify please.
Your last paragraph is wrong. Fan vs Fan is still meaningless. You are trying to give yourself an unspoken title to screen out other people to "protec larian". Don't know if you did that on purpose or subconsciously. People are too easily swayed by loud noises and "white knights". Not saying you are one though but your "logic" sounds a lot like a hivemind and that is never going to lead to a better game.
It's not that hard to understand what I wrote, a truth about an aggregate applies to the aggregate not to the individual hence context. How fucking hard is that for you to understand? There is no such thing as a good point in a vacuum because it is inherently tied to a context due to having made a value judgment / qualifying it.
In short, your original statement is wrong as is your understanding of what I wrote.
Fan vs Fan isn't meaningless unless you're trying to take the conclusions of that and apply it to something that doesn't mesh. How hard is that for you to understand?
And you're pretty dense if you think that my logic is that of a hivemind, it's literally what every architect has to consider when given a project or any product owner, which is a criticism to both supporters and opponents of the current implementation.
So, please, tell me how my logic supports a 'hivemind' when I am telling you that almost no one has qualified and quantified in any serious manner?
I mean is it really this hard for you to read the interviews and figure out their constraints and do an analysis? Or is doing that analysis in depth considered a hivemind activity?
