I realized that point when I wrote it, and I still decided to write it anyways, because your argument doesn't really shatter mine at all.
I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning which shatters your argument.
The Houston Chronicle spends MORE time covering basketball than it does video games... so why isn't its expertise on basketball more credible than in video games?
There is multiple incorrect rationale you've just shot out of your mouth, but let's focus on the most obvious one. Your basis for expertise on the Houston Chronicle covering the NBA MVPis because of an official NBA designation of MVP. There is none such for video games. Therefore, your basis for credibility (which could be flawed even if it had validity) is gone, and your argument ripped apart.
I realize there is no official award for a global or regional GotY, but that fact alone doesn't mean that any source is as credible as the next. My whole point was missed because you were too anxious to see the fault in it.
The problem was your basis for credibility and how it cannot be applied here. Your analogy failed.
Log in to comment