Is there a word or term to describe when someone focuses on a specific example, rather than the problem at large?

For those who don't play video games, there's a growing trend in the industry called "Microtransactions" - a small fee the player can pay for certain things in game. Usually something small, such as a cosmetic item to change the color of their equipment, or a fancy Mount to ride on. Usually, these convey no actual benefit to the player aside from looking cool and unique. But there are games that abuse this (especially on mobile devices) where you can pay for convenience; get experience faster, objectively better items or other advantages, pay now for extra Lives or whatever.

Having defined that term, I had a discussion recently about the trend of Microtransactions and how so long as a game doesn't implement them in a manner that gives paying players an objective advantage over other players I think they're perfectly fine. I cited a game as an example of one that I was told implements these microtransactions unfairly, and I was apparently misinformed.

The other person in the discussion then went on a tangent about how the example game is totally fine and how wrong I was, completely ignoring my initial statement that the discussion is actually about and discrediting everything I said because of a poor example.

Is there a phrase, term, or something to describe the train of thought where a person "pokes holes" in a specific example and overlooks the greater picture like this?

Solution 1:

Argument from fallacy could work. (It's also called argumentum ad logicam or fallacy fallacy, among other things.) Logically Fallacious, a database of logical fallacies, describes it this way:

Description: Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.

Logical form: Argument X is fallacious. Therefore, the conclusion or truth claim or argument X is false.

In your case, then, your argument that Example Game used microtransactions unfairly was false, while your conclusion may or may not have been false. However, the other person used this fallacy to claim that because one of your arguments was false, your entire conclusion was false.

Solution 2:

There is an idiomatic phrase that describes the situation

He can't see the forest for the trees.

Dictionary.com defines it as

An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn't see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”

The thefreedictionary.com concurs and gives a reference back to 1546.

Also, can't see the wood for the trees. Focus only on small details and fail to understand larger plans or principles, as in Alex argues about petty cash and overlooks the budget-he can't see the forest for the trees. This expression was already a proverb in John Heywood's 1546 collection.

Supplement: An individual who deliberately exhibited such a pattern could be called a nit-picker

a concern with insignificant details, esp with the intention of finding fault

Collins

Supplement II: In light of several comments that seek more focus on the tangential nature of the objector's comments, also consider red herring

a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.3 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.

The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument [the red herring] is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.

Wikipedia

Solution 3:

You could say he has tunnel vision, in the metaphorical sense, or that this person is missing the point of your argument.

Solution 4:

You could call them a pedant - "a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details" from the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

Solution 5:

There's myopic (adj): lacking foresight or discernment; having a narrow view of something (M-W), but it feels like that's not quite it.