Thank you, Leo. I think.
LunarRaptor, I really don't know how to address this, but I'll try one more time: When I say your arguments lack nuance, I am not saying that you lack nuance. If I feel that my, or Sonic's (since he's probably the best, er, arguer here, for lack of a better term) arguments are better, that is not the same thing as saying that he and I are intrinsically better people than you are.
But honestly, your concept of having a good conversation doesn't line up very well with other people's. This particular thread is only the most recent example.
You: Game X sucked. Anyone know why?
Me: Dunno. For some reason no one saw how elements ABCDEF combined really badly. Probably not enough time.
(Leo, Sonic, me: side discussion about Ubisoft.)
Sonic: Some of elements ABCDEF have worked in other games and/or could work here if balanced correctly.
You: Game X sucked because reason Y.
Sonic: That doesn't necessarily follow, because Y-prime would also explain it.
You: Professional programmers and companies, ergo reason Y. I won't believe anything else.
Me: That's not a very nuanced opinion that you keep repeating. (implied) Why don't you address what other people are saying?
You: I am too being nuanced. Y, Y, Y. Provide evidence of not-Y. What total-opposite-of-Y are you seeing that I'm not?
Sonic: Where's your evidence that Y is the reason for outcome Z (game X sucking)? Here are more granular reasons why Y is not the only possible explanation.
Me: There's a spectrum between Y and total-opposite-of-Y, not just the binary you're setting up. (Also, you're irritating the hell out of me with your Yning.) I reiterate: Sonic's discussion of alternate explanations Y' and Y", plus anecdote about software dev life, plus box copy that supports Y" as a motivation.
You: Unless any of you can prove not-Y, I will continue to shout Y! Not addressing anything else said other than Y. I'm not budging. Prove total-opposite-of-Y "or roll over." Also, I lack nothing (even though I have nowhere responded to any of the specifics suggesting things other than Y.)
Sonic: My purpose is to converse and discuss, not prove anything to you, so unconvinced you will remain.
Leo: Chill, dude. Don't take it so personal. The truth likely lies somewhere between Y and not-Y.
You: Outcome Z proves premise Y. Leo, you're hitting me awfully hard for just wanting good conversation (like "prove it or roll over"). I don't like being talked down to (roll over, of course, is entirely egalitarian).
Leo: No one's going to change Alunissage, and even though you claim to see right through her you're missing the obvious about her.
You: Okay, since it's you asking, I'll drop it.
N.b., I'm just writing that up in the preview so I can't see the earliest posts.
Can you really not see the disconnect between insisting Y while totally ignoring suggestions for not-Y? The rudeness in ignoring all attempts to discuss other possible explanations? It's like you see it as a battle and even addressing things other than what you said would be showing weakness or something. We're not disagreeing with you that the game sucked. We're not even disagreeing with the idea that someone didn't care about the property -- just that that's the only and entire reason. Some of us have real-world experiences informing our notion that there are other factors at play.
As regards knowing things I can't talk about: NDAs exist. Yes, even for videogames. And even if they didn't, professional courtesy also exists. So, you know, even if Sonic or I had an anguished email from a developer about how much they love the series and hate themselves for shoving the game out the door rather than be fired, it wouldn't be posted here. (That's a fictional example, by the way. As far as I know.) And that's all I have to say about that. Please note, neither of us was claiming knowledge of not-Y, just pointing out that Y:Z is not a one-to-one relationship.