Edjamakated Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 You went from making sense to deliberately picking fights... are you lonely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 A bit. You can answer all the silly questions from now on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Quit attacking Haver for making a point, you sad person you. You're the one making this a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edjamakated Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 right.....believe what you like.... so ends this thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I think the issue here isn't fanboyism, but segregations within the gaming community. 1) graphics. everyone here likes good graphics. I think the problem is the definition of good graphics. graphics give a game an identity, a feel. there are in our medium limits. so graphics are measured by three standards. the first is how well it meets the machines limits. the second is how much the player likes the graphics, and the third is how well the graphics suit the nature of the game. one is a less arguable factor, either a game pushes the machine its on (or pushes the boat out in terms of graphical excellence on that machine) or it doesn't. The second point is subjective, purely on aesthetics, do they like the style used? and then the third point is does the style suit the feel of the game? I've heard the phrase don't judge a book by its cover. the problem is the graphics of a game (much like a movie) are an integral part of the medium. taking windwaker as an example. it wasn't kiddy, but it was cheerful. many gamers wanting a darker game didn't buy it. thats fair enough. gamers wanting a lighter tale could enjoy it. it was still a great game. The graphics suited the nature of the game, which was a plus, as a good game (graphically) should not just display competently, but also give a good idea of the atmosphere and general nature of the game. graphically, non of the systems are vastly different. yes there are small differences, but not as big as the difference between a generation. all have games that push the hardware varying amounts, all have lazily coded games, and games that are coded with dedication. platforms wise - PS2, Xbox or GC, makes no difference. you get different controllers, but ultimately they are all the same. analogue sticks, buttons, triggers and d-pads. there's not really much in it if we're honest, and in the end it comes down to personal opinion. but if you had the nintendo PS2, and the sony gamecube, would it have changed your purchasing (assuming the games stayed with the company not the console name) Personally I am of the opinion that if you enjoy games on just one platform you are lucky - I saved about £3/400 because I've only purchase a GC and not an xbox/ps2. people with one console protect that console, perhaps because they are scared of it pulling a dreamcast, perhaps because the console appearing weak will make them appear weak. mature people are happy with what ever console they have, and its just part of the maturing process getting over "fanboyism". the problem is when fanboyism becomes elitism, which seems to take the form of those who claim the title of "hardcore gamer". but hardcore gamers wasn't what this was aimed for. it was at fanboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts