Comments by "Limrasson" (@Limrasson) on "IGN made everyone mad.." video.

@Krescentwolf It's not credibility. What you guys are doing here is actually really annoying, because you are factually wrong because you can't be bothered to read what was shown or decided for yourselfves that your narrative would do better if you change the article in your head and pretend that is what's written. "The article doesn't mention realism" is not a subjective argument, it's objectively true. Therefore you basing your argument on the contrary is factually wrong. Credibility does not play into this. Sure it's possible that there is a longer article behind the summary where the journalist goes on some stupid rant about realism, but that's neither here nor there. Also please consider that just because it's a scan of a real woman it doesn't mean it's not edited. It's like saying that photoshopped magazine covers are realistic because the source is an actual photo of a woman. The ironic part of all this is that we are making fun of this journalist for being petty and factually incorrect and you guys come in and do the exact same thing.
14
@ER-ie1yr First of all, just because you imagine things, like additional meaning, it doesn't mean it's there. Second, you could try and develop the ability to separate statements. Just because the journalist made the dumb journalist insult of dumbness it doesn't mean that his earlier statement isn't true. OP here rewriting it so it fits his narrative on the other hand is definitely the same braindead move the journalists we mock here keep doing. Just look at this comment section, OP changes the original article's text to support his narrative and conveniently omits everything that isn't (like how scans can be edited or that the journalist brought up examples that would put this narrative into question) Then someone else points all of this out. For which the first reply is "HUE HUE YOU DRONE" which is such an intelligent reply I think a handful of dried moths could do better. For instance you could look at the character and model itself and tell if there is even a point of caring about realism, or if you ignore the second part of the article, does the first part make sense? But all I saw here is "IGN BAD, OKEY?!"
5
@ArthurD And you wrote little, but said nothing, not really an improvement if you ask me.
4
@762x69 your racism has no power here
2
@ER-ie1yr See, this is exactly the argument I would like to see here instead of what OP did.
2
@kubka4 Are you for real? Well, very simple then, point out where they said it, verbatim. Otherwise you are just inserting your own ideas into the topic, which is foolish at best. But anyway, you completely miss the point here. A - There might be one point to the article, but the "2 sentences next to each other" are 2 independent statements. B - The point here is that OP takes these statements and creates his own narrative by again, inserting his own reading of the article into it. The counter argument to mock the IGN journalist is factually wrong. A - The article never explicitly states that it considers realism and in fact uses positive examples that are also not realistic (but all of you completely ignore this). Second OP bases his mockery on the idea that body scan used = real, which is just a brainlet move. C - All of this is for no point other than potentially not understanding why the journalist fails at journalism. The second statement, trying to say "haha, devman is pathetic horny loser" is again incorrect in every way and even if it wasn't the insult itself would look weak/lame as an insult here in this comment section, let alone in an article you get paid for to write. And yes it does call credibility into question a statement which I did not contest (and you might have imagined that I do) So not only is "horny loser" a pathetically weak insult, it's also incorrect and very easily researched. (and in fact devman seems to be a horny winner instead) And the fact that like 50% of the replies to my comments are brainlet insults isn't very encouraging either.
1
@ER-ie1yr All fine and good friend, but a "scan of a real woman" and a character model created using the scan is as close as you can get to what a doll is without involving actual stuffing. And going on your rant this time about what's realistic and what isn't is coming from your assumption that we are talking about that. Because yes, implicated meaning exist, but because it IS implicated it means that multiple reading of it can exist. You act like your idea is 100% what's true. But when I read the text all I see is calling the character model a doll, which suggest lack of personality and not that it's not realistic looking. Due to the article bringing up examples you keep ignoring. I had the idea now that the first part of the article triggered a bunch of you, wether it had merit or not and you are dead-set focusing on that instead of the actually laughable part of a journalist using "hehe, loser virgin" insult in an article they got paid for. And I don't even understand why it's a touchy subject for you, would your experience be ruined if the character was unrealistic?
1
@ER-ie1yr If you feel I haven't adressed some of your points that's likely due to A - I don't disagree or B - I don't think it has anything to do with the topic or the argument.
1
@CJTheTokay A - He bring race and racism into an argument that has nothing to do with it. B - Me using the "N-word" has nothing to do with my race. C - I'm actually impressed he bothered to history check, it's really nice that he did that. However I believe it's bad to demonize words. D - It's sort of a trap anyway, I'm from mid-eastern europe, being racist against africans would make even less sense than it does for americans.
1
@soulofartorias9928 No, but what's the point?
1
@soulofartorias9928 You pretty much said what I did, so what are we smoking? When did IGN have had credibility in the first place? I'm not here to defend the journalist, I'm here because I too think that, based on the shown text alone, OP's argument here is weak as shit.
1
@soulofartorias9928 Anyway I consider it a win if I get to agree with one guy, whom I've had the argument which already happened.
1
@CubeInspector What are you even talking about?
1