I had simply assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that Warder had judged the quality of the game (even though you had not). He made it quite clear by precisely explaining what he considered annoying about it, i.e., why he considered it a "flop". But you deliberately ignored this instead, as I said before, picking out the word "flop" and disregarding all his explanations about what he had meant using it. However, maybe I should reconsider my assessment of your intelligence if you cannot even stand this simple observation and feel the need to compensate by means of verbal aggression and calling me silly.
+1
After I disproved Warders original faulty argument, Warder decided that he would create his own definition for the word flop (moreover, calling the games failures does not help him any), and I made it quite clear that I don't care about what he thinks. He can hate Fallout 3 and 4 all he wants, he can think them junk, it won't change history, Fallout 3 and 4 have both been rated very highly and are both popular (and in my orignial response, I backed up their popularity with sales data). The games being flops was Warder's original conclusion (not just some word I picked out), his subjective premises were faulty when taking into account his conclusion. Even if his conclusion and premises had matched it would still be a non-argument i.e. only his opinion, there is no arguing with what, I care about how. If he had simply said that he did not like the games I would not have cared, calling the games "flops" was incorrect. As for judging intelligence, I see nothing that qualifies you as someone who can judge it; you yourself refuse to accept context and the sequence of the conversation, two things that are rather important if you are going to butt into other people's business.