I'm not contradicting myself, I stated that most of the games aren't referring the obvious, not all of the games. This is where Origins gets its role.AuraTwilight wrote:So why can't Origins do the same thing and refer to something besides what you would obviously assume? You're contradicting yourself
AuraTwilight wrote:It's like you're entirely incapable of imagining what-if scenarios. It's only like that because that's how things happened in reality. If hypothetically Origins was developed without the Alessa story in mind, the above "simple fact" wouldn't be a fact. Are you dyslexic or something? I've been saying this for days now.
Fuck. Firstly, I get your freakin' hypothetical. I fucking get it. However, your hypothetical doesn't work either. And that's what I was trying to prove all this time. So, if your statement is hypothetical, nobody must argue? You're calling me dyslexic, while the argument keeps going like:
ME: Travis' story is a condition.
YOU: It's hypothetical.
ME. It still doesn't work. It's not a prequel then.
YOU: It's hypothetical.
ME: Yes, but you can't call it Origins then..
YOU: It's hypothetical.
I mean.. what are we talking about here??!
+ I don't know how, but the last statement didn't feel that hypothetical to me:
Is this hypothethical, Aura? No, it's you claiming that real Origins (not hypothetical Origins) could be about Travis. Am I wrong?AuraTwilight wrote:Silent Hill has been known to do bait-and-switch promotions anyway, so why the fuck not make people think it's about the origins of the town and deliver a different story?
Screw you. SM is my 2nd favorite. Moreover, this really doesn't have anything to do with Origins.AuraTwilight wrote:Goddamn, I bet you hated Shattered Memories because it wasn't a perfect 1-for-1 remake of the first game. This is basically where your logic is leading you.
PS. It's reimagining, not remake.