As I recall I just said FF6 and CT were awesome and better than pretty much any other game, then you called me a ****** for liking them better than Skyrim.
I don't even know where the graphics **** came into it, lol. I said LoL had poor graphics but that's pretty much the only time I even used the word. I think you were arguing with someone else about graphics and I argued with one point or something.
Whatever, I can't really be bothered anymore. It's a pointless discussion and Toshabi is getting way too much pleasure out of people arguing for ten pages in his thread. I should have stopped replying ages ago but I have nothing better to do. :P
I don't even know where the graphics **** came into it, lol. I said LoL had poor graphics but that's pretty much the only time I even used the word. I think you were arguing with someone else about graphics and I argued with one point or something.
Whatever, I can't really be bothered anymore. It's a pointless discussion and Toshabi is getting way too much pleasure out of people arguing for ten pages in his thread. I should have stopped replying ages ago but I have nothing better to do. :P
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Lugignaf wrote:
I said that a company is putting out a SNES game in 2013. It's already got 300 of it's 600 copies preordered. It's selling for the price of $60 USD+ $8 for UPS shipping in the states and $75 USD outside of them.
Do you know what 600 copies means? that's nothing! Those are the people who're buying it because it's a SNES game. It's a niche market. If I can sell 600 codfish ice-creams does it prove that weird flavoured ice-creams are better than strawberry and chocolate? No, it does not. It proves that there are 600 people with a really weird taste.
@Luther3000
I never asked you if you like it more, I asked you if they were better. I'll give you the sushi example again. I do not like sushi, but if someone asks me if sushi is good I will not answer "no" because I know the majority of the people like sushi and I can see why they like it.
Just because you like something more doesn't mean it's any better.
The FFVI advance was pretty cool because it was made for game boy and the game is like 4 years old. If it were made for PS2 or GameCube then it would suck really hard because you'd be playing it on a TV.
Also, LoL has pretty sick graphics. Just look at the detail the champions and spells have. Just because LoL is cartoonish does not mean it is bad. graphics =/= realism. At least I prefer LoL graphics to HoN, they're a lot easier on the eye.
Toshabi wrote:
I still like you despite you having a really bad moment right now. With that said, continue to eat away at the other poor souls that you have trapped in your jaws.
Yea, I agree.
"I walked up to her big butt and asked her *** butt what." - Lil Wayne, lyrical genius
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
Beeswarm17
<Member>
<Member>
Canoas wrote:
@Beeswarm
Ocarina of Time 3D is for DS.. The first ocarina of time was for TV. Obviously the graphics won't be that different because the screen size got reduced by 95%. Play ocarina of time on a TV and you'll see the difference.
Would you buy FF VII (I assume you meant VII, because XII is rather recent) for 60$ if it came out now? With the lack of voices and blocky graphics? I don't think so. At least I know I wouldn't.
Obviously games aren't only based on graphics. I never said they were. I've been saying exactly the opposite. For me playability and story > graphics. However, I still acknowledge that graphics are important for a game and a game that has 20 year old graphics will never sell in today's market. It's not a difference like between MW3 and MW2, it's being able to see every individual pixel on the screen.
Whether they looked at the screenshots is irrelevant. That does not change how the game is. They bought a game, tried it and found it boring so they rated it 1/10. They are completely unbiased as they are rating the game as if it had come out now.
Screen size has little to do with graphics changes. They changed nothing, not because the screen is smaller, but because it is cheaper to directly port it and people will still buy it.
I will not buy FF VII for $60 because I don't like the game. I would buy FF4 for $60 if it is in new condition, in the box, with instruction guide and everything. I straight up would. Call me an idiot, but I think it's a better game than most new games on the market now. Plus, the resale value on that is pretty damn high, because there are others like me.
I agreed with you that you didn't say graphics were everything. That was the first thing I said. That is why I said I agreed with you. You told me that you believe that story and gameplay are more important than graphics, and I believe you. That was not an argument. I also agreed that graphics are important to a game and that 20 year old games will not sell at the same price as new games on the market. None of this was disagreement.
If they think the game is bad, that's fine. I don't think they even played the game, though. They essentially went to McDonald's, asked for a big mac, and got a veggie burger. They then proceeded to talk about how bad the veggie burger was. No ****, they wanted a big mac. If they wanted a veggie burger, they would have bought one. These people rage reviewed a game they didn't even want to play because it was different than what they wanted.
Xiron wrote:
Toshabi, I think you should start to realize that not everyone likes old "classic" games.
What Toshabi thinks: People are kind of ******ed for buying a product and complaining that it's in black and white when the screen shots located right underneath the "add to cart" button are in black and white.
What Canoas is trying to do: Make it seem like Toshabi is a fanboy of Mario Land 2 and is crying because people downvoted his stupid game.
What's actually happening: Canoas is having a miserable time trying to failtroll the great and powerful Toshabi.
I give him props though for baiting the people that he did bait in this thread though, it's entertaining to see people argue with him despite him taking a "No matter what you say I'm going to have to disagree with you despite my stance being ******ed" approach. The whole point of this thread was suppose to be about people complaining about things they got stuck with for them not paying attention to obvious details before their purchase. :V
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Beeswarm17 wrote:
Screen size has little to do with graphics changes. They changed nothing, not because the screen is smaller, but because it is cheaper to directly port it and people will still buy it.
It does actually. Smaller screens means less space for details, so the graphics can't be that complex or it'll be too confusing and unpleasant to the eye. The bigger the screen the better the graphics need to be.
Beeswarm17
<Member>
<Member>
Canoas wrote:
It does actually. Smaller screens means less space for details, so the graphics can't be that complex or it'll be too confusing and unpleasant to the eye. The bigger the screen the better the graphics need to be.
That doesn't actually change things like polygon count, but I see what you mean. Also, after looking at some comparable screen shots, they did actually change a few things. They improved on some of it, though it's pretty minor.
You need to log in before commenting.
However, I still acknowledge that graphics are important for a game and a game that has 20 year old graphics will never sell in today's market.
Did you not hear me earlier?
I said that a company is putting out a SNES game in 2013. It's already got 300 of it's 600 copies preordered. It's selling for the price of $60 USD+ $8 for UPS shipping in the states and $75 USD outside of them.