
Originally Posted by
gschwendt
No... I get tired of him making idiotic statements. And then, when you call him on those statements, he changes his original argument.
Case in point, he said "in the real world a team would spike the ball or call a time out and think about a play" so I give him examples of two coaches that would not spike the ball or call a timeout.
So instead of walking away or conceding his original point, he changes his argument to "what real world coaches would do is pointless when the video game has a larger than 50% success rate on any play".
So which is it? Are we going to compare the game to real life or are we going to go back to his favorite old argument that the game is "just a toy"?
Bookmarks