Sometimes, it's just best to wait for when more information comes out, rather than to continue arguing with little information.
A lot of people were arguing that RE3.5 was cancelled due to executive meddling and for a long time, that assumption was the "general knowledge".
Years later, the writer for that game revealed that it was mostly cancelled because of disc space limitations and implied that the game could have been completed if it wasn't for that issue.
Thanks to this bit of info, I was able to debunk a lot of people who assumed that RE3.5 was cancelled because the staff/execs/etc. hated the idea.
With the right information and timing for the rebuttal, you can totally shut up the other side.
Even if the other side stays stubborn, you know it works when they start ranting about you whenever they can and are extra cautious about posting and rarely respond directly to you.
A lot of people were arguing that RE3.5 was cancelled due to executive meddling and for a long time, that assumption was the "general knowledge".
Years later, the writer for that game revealed that it was mostly cancelled because of disc space limitations and implied that the game could have been completed if it wasn't for that issue.
Thanks to this bit of info, I was able to debunk a lot of people who assumed that RE3.5 was cancelled because the staff/execs/etc. hated the idea.
A lot of people keep coming to conclusions that "arguing is pointless" or "stupid" because nothing conclusive comes out of it and so on but I feel that the people who keep saying this are just not good at it.in other words, there's no point in arguing right?
With the right information and timing for the rebuttal, you can totally shut up the other side.
Even if the other side stays stubborn, you know it works when they start ranting about you whenever they can and are extra cautious about posting and rarely respond directly to you.