Here's the beauty of the situation, you don't have to agree.
What "agreeing" has to do with it?
A good example is your claim that Larian would be roasted on console-centric forums for the control scheme in DOS 2. Unless, of course, you can provide some links?
How do you fail SO CONSISTENTLY at reading comprehension?
I said Larian would be roasted if the DOS 2 control system on console would involved clicking and dragging portraits around. Which DOES NOT.
I've already demonstrated how "party based CRPGs don't fit into that category" is a fallacy
What "fallacy" are you even talking about? I was speaking about my specific preference there. How can I be "wrong" about my preference?
I said that there are games I even prefer to play on a controller, but CRPGs are not among them.
I don't care if you are happy with playing a party-based CRPG with a controller, I'm not.
...Ok? So what?
And it's terrible on console, incidentally, so not sure what's your point.
This is exactly my point. Was Dragon Age Origins crap on XBox? Maybe you played it on Playstation? Maybe you never touched it on either, but "it's on console, and it's party based, so it's bad"? What about Mass Effect? Once again, however, you try to push your opinion out as fact.
You: "That's cool, I guess, not that I agree a single bit"
Me: "That's cool, you don't have to agree"
You: "What's agreeing got to do with anything"...
If you don't want people replying to things you post, don't post it? The fallacy is that these games can't work with a controller. This is your stated opinion, and what we are expected to accept as gospel, because you said it? My own experiences with these games doesn't matter because you said "well, that's bad"? You can't even remain consistent about things that you bring up, and then have questioned or commented on, such as agreeing or not. It doesn't make me feel like I've learned anything new about the game(s) in question, but it does tell me a lot about your position.
