Sony vs. Sony?
- Thread starter Darth_Jonas
- Start date
It depends on the discussion. In this case (launch lineups), it's the media rankings and the number of exclusives.
uffs pipe::
To continue with the degree of relevance, Spud:
I was in London, and I saw a fox that lived in a little park that was split by the Underground's overpass. I think it might've killed someone's cat. What's a fox doing in the middle of a densely populated city like that? I knew squirrells and pigeons lived in cities, and stray dogs, but foxes? They cry like a screaming baby, and there's no way to trick yourself into just thinking "oh, there's a fox" first. I always think "poor kid" for a tense moment.
I doubt that even you would be so diluted as to judge the whole world by other people's opinions. Are you that ready to differ your freedom of thought just to win an argument? Or would you stand up for what you believe in? I'm sticking with this senselessness because you keep telling me my opinion isn't valid. If mine isn't, then neither is yours, or the opinions upon which you've based your own. But as long as you frame it that my opinion is somehow wrong, then you're forgetting the meaning of opinion.
It was the least stellar of that generation's launches. That does not mean it was a bad launch. And the PS3's had a fine launch for games, but it seems like too little, too late, and for too great a cost. That's my opinion, against the backdrop of Wii having already sold three times as many units with an instant classic riding along and the X360's games looking comparably wonderful for $200 less. Your opinion comes from a different perspective, and is informed and molded differently. You value those aspects differently, or not at all. Fine by me. But don't tell me that you, another mere human, another forum face like me, are somehow a superior barometer of the industry just because you hold the media's abstracted "magic numbers" in higher regard than your own experience.
Fin.
I was in London, and I saw a fox that lived in a little park that was split by the Underground's overpass. I think it might've killed someone's cat. What's a fox doing in the middle of a densely populated city like that? I knew squirrells and pigeons lived in cities, and stray dogs, but foxes? They cry like a screaming baby, and there's no way to trick yourself into just thinking "oh, there's a fox" first. I always think "poor kid" for a tense moment.
I doubt that even you would be so diluted as to judge the whole world by other people's opinions. Are you that ready to differ your freedom of thought just to win an argument? Or would you stand up for what you believe in? I'm sticking with this senselessness because you keep telling me my opinion isn't valid. If mine isn't, then neither is yours, or the opinions upon which you've based your own. But as long as you frame it that my opinion is somehow wrong, then you're forgetting the meaning of opinion.
It was the least stellar of that generation's launches. That does not mean it was a bad launch. And the PS3's had a fine launch for games, but it seems like too little, too late, and for too great a cost. That's my opinion, against the backdrop of Wii having already sold three times as many units with an instant classic riding along and the X360's games looking comparably wonderful for $200 less. Your opinion comes from a different perspective, and is informed and molded differently. You value those aspects differently, or not at all. Fine by me. But don't tell me that you, another mere human, another forum face like me, are somehow a superior barometer of the industry just because you hold the media's abstracted "magic numbers" in higher regard than your own experience.
Fin.
Oh, but certainly you wouldn't be so deluded as to think that you know better than every. Single. Other. Person...In something so subjective as the quality of a video game, and in this case, every single other person's opinion on a group of games. If everyone unanimously disagrees with you, then in all likelihood, you're very wrong.
And your opinion isn't valid. It's simply wrong. It's wrong because it is quantifiably incorrect in something that is not, in fact, subjective. Comparing this is like judging quality of life. There's always an anomaly (see: you) that in no way reflects what was actually the case, but for the most part, everything else was pretty unanimous.
And even so, the PS2's launch wasn't even the least-good of its generation...that spot is held convincingly by the Cube.
And your opinion isn't valid. It's simply wrong. It's wrong because it is quantifiably incorrect in something that is not, in fact, subjective. Comparing this is like judging quality of life. There's always an anomaly (see: you) that in no way reflects what was actually the case, but for the most part, everything else was pretty unanimous.
And even so, the PS2's launch wasn't even the least-good of its generation...that spot is held convincingly by the Cube.
lets get back to this launch deal, i have never been to imprest by the games that came out on launch, the only games that i have to say are the best were Mario64 and Halo. but this year's launch was poor. Zelda is the biggest one for Nintendo, Resistence was the ps3's but i still haven't played the zelda yet, but i was very dissapointed in Resistence.
if anytime of the year they need the "good games" to be out it needs to be on launch day to attact the consumers!
if anytime of the year they need the "good games" to be out it needs to be on launch day to attact the consumers!
I think this launch is enough of a departure to say that the games aren't so important. All of the consoles sport some unusual features that really have an impact on how players will use the system. The Wii could be sold purely on those novel controls, alone, or the virtual console. The PS3 could sell purely as a cheap Blue-ray player. The X360 could sell only for it's robust online features and store. Video game consoles are still about games, but "games" mean a lot more than just the game, now.
Well, you also need to remember that...who's being disappointed directly? The handful of people who actually own a PS3? All 200,000-400,000 of them? By the time the PS3 is readily buyable, there will already be all sorts of great games around.
And everyone likes Resistance but you.
And everyone likes Resistance but you.
spudlyff8fan said:
i never said i didn't like it i said i was deeply dissapointed in it, i thought it was fun, but kinda over rated like call of duty 3, which sucked by the way.
no it makes perfect sense, you can be dissapointed in a game but still like it
i was dissapointed in ressistence i didn't think it was that cracked up to be and thats my oppion dont judge me, the bible says not to. but i still it was a good game.
i was dissapointed in ressistence i didn't think it was that cracked up to be and thats my oppion dont judge me, the bible says not to. but i still it was a good game.
Well I to have to agree. RFM is not all that great. It was media hyped because really there IS NOTHING good on the PS3 or worth anything. Don't get me wrong the game is well done and it looks cool, but it's not 9 worthy. It's about a 7 or low 8. And NO RUMBLE SUCKS.
And I'm sorry to interject here on something someone said before, but WHO the HELL are you to say that someone elses opinon dose not matter. Where do you get your rocks off for saying that. Thats right along the lines of saying there life is worthless. That anything they say has no meaning. When honestly your words have no meaning. They are just words, things you say outta your mouth. It dose not make you smart or make you a VIP. By you saying you are better than someone only makes you out to be a self loathing fool, who has no life outside of trying to make other people look fools. YOu look like the Randel from Clerks 2 ( not the funny part) the old man who has no friends and can't do anything better than his life. The Randle that picks fights with everyone and is not happy with his life. This is you or who you will become. And your life will become meaningless and worthless and that is all I have to say.
And I'm sorry to interject here on something someone said before, but WHO the HELL are you to say that someone elses opinon dose not matter. Where do you get your rocks off for saying that. Thats right along the lines of saying there life is worthless. That anything they say has no meaning. When honestly your words have no meaning. They are just words, things you say outta your mouth. It dose not make you smart or make you a VIP. By you saying you are better than someone only makes you out to be a self loathing fool, who has no life outside of trying to make other people look fools. YOu look like the Randel from Clerks 2 ( not the funny part) the old man who has no friends and can't do anything better than his life. The Randle that picks fights with everyone and is not happy with his life. This is you or who you will become. And your life will become meaningless and worthless and that is all I have to say.
yea spudly saying that your opinion is wrong or does not matter is probably some of the most retarded things i have ever seen on any fourm EVER.
you can not say a opinion is wrong because opinions CAN NOT be wrong!
and if everybody elses opinion is wrong and yours is right. then everyone in the world would be retarted and killed them self.
you can not say a opinion is wrong because opinions CAN NOT be wrong!
and if everybody elses opinion is wrong and yours is right. then everyone in the world would be retarted and killed them self.
Once again, everyone but you seems to think that Resistance is a high-level game. And no rumble pack=no unnecessary gimmick. Games are no better with it. They'll be no worse without it.
And ya see, opinions can be wrong. There are two things in this world: facts and opinions. Facts are always correct. That's what makes them facts. Here is the definition of fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
Now, if something is UNTRUE, even though "truth" is the DEFINITION of fact, how can something UNTRUE be a fact? Answer: It can't be. It's an oppinion. There is nothing between a fact and an opinion. It's either one or the other.
Now, my statements are based on facts, and therefore correct, and therefore, true. And BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE DISCUSSION, there is only one correct standpoint. And since there is only one correct standpoint, as this is purely objective, anything that is not alligned with the one correct standpoint is moot.
Here's another example. Grantastic believes the word "retarded" is spelled "retarted." This is cetainly not a fact, because "retarded" is, in fact, spelled R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D. So, it is solely in his INCORRECT opinion, that "retarded" is spelled R-E-T-A-R-T-E-D. THAT is all there is to it.
And ya see, opinions can be wrong. There are two things in this world: facts and opinions. Facts are always correct. That's what makes them facts. Here is the definition of fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
Now, if something is UNTRUE, even though "truth" is the DEFINITION of fact, how can something UNTRUE be a fact? Answer: It can't be. It's an oppinion. There is nothing between a fact and an opinion. It's either one or the other.
Now, my statements are based on facts, and therefore correct, and therefore, true. And BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE DISCUSSION, there is only one correct standpoint. And since there is only one correct standpoint, as this is purely objective, anything that is not alligned with the one correct standpoint is moot.
Here's another example. Grantastic believes the word "retarded" is spelled "retarted." This is cetainly not a fact, because "retarded" is, in fact, spelled R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D. So, it is solely in his INCORRECT opinion, that "retarded" is spelled R-E-T-A-R-T-E-D. THAT is all there is to it.
Opinions can be wrong, and that is when they ignore the facts. An opinion is right when the former of that thought takes into account all of the relevant facts. Thus, if when faced with the same facts the former doesn't change their opinion, it is because either those facts were already taken into account or the former does not value those facts as highly as the facts used to form the opinion.
Consider this example: party A is a Neo-Nazi, and party B is a typical liberal college student. According to A, who is unemployeed, their job was taken by non-aryans, and in their mind it is a fact that non-aryans are inferior to aryans like him or herself, so affirmative action becomes a cultural attack on his way of life. This belief is supported by certain immigration, education, employment, and salary data, and thus A feels fully justified in his or her mind. However, party B sees inequity in education systems, in welfare, etc, that can be traced through the same facts and figures and forms the opinion that affirmative action is still necessary and useful in promoting diversity and helping minorities to become de-marginalized.
Same facts, but interpretted with a different value system, lead to very different results. You believe average review scores and sales represent the only worthwhile aspect of reality to consider, while I try to include the whole history of the games industry as well as games as appreciable features of culture. Thus your reality is shaped by the concensus of review scores, which is a decent digital indication of the game's value, while others (such as I) try to consider the intangible values of a game's impact on culture, industry, and the market, as these values will have concrete volumes and forms in the future.
Thus, one opinion is based purely in reality but is of little value in discussion of games as a cultural or commercial phenomenon outside of creating a dry backdrop for the major players to act against, because those realms are dominated by incalculable features of the human mind: demand, interest, relevance, memory, etc. This deeper perspective is, however, prone to corruption by faulty definitions and its own admission that the Mind of the Public is impossible to read.
This is, of course, my humble opinion, explained in hopes to NOT create a middle ground, but to show that, fundamentally, opinions are always wrong somehow because, in order to form an opinion, one must ignore the crucial fact that all of the working of humans are an insignificant sputter on the fringes of a galaxy that is not composed of people and ideas but particles and atoms that move irrespective of these thoughts and suggestions.
Thus, by forming an opinion, you ignore the impirical fact that the universe doesn't care. By sharing that opinion, you ignore the fact that people don't ask for your opinion to copy it as thier own, but as more information to adapt into their own opinion to make it relevant to more than their own brain cells. Discussion is naturally a subjective process because whatever pure reality is being referenced must be interpretted through the participant's expectations, experience, and value systems, then conveyed through the participant's capacity to form those filtered ideas into words (or music, or visual art, or whatever medium) for others to recieve. And even there, some kind of noise or static like a language barrier, incomplete expression of the thought, etc, etc, can interfere with the message.
THUS, it's an impirical fact that discussion is only relevant to the participants' perceptions of reality, and little to do with reality, and is thus worthless except to pass the time between now and when one dies. Opinions about opinions? Extra worthless.
And spelling has nothing to do with opinions. It's Spelling.
Consider this example: party A is a Neo-Nazi, and party B is a typical liberal college student. According to A, who is unemployeed, their job was taken by non-aryans, and in their mind it is a fact that non-aryans are inferior to aryans like him or herself, so affirmative action becomes a cultural attack on his way of life. This belief is supported by certain immigration, education, employment, and salary data, and thus A feels fully justified in his or her mind. However, party B sees inequity in education systems, in welfare, etc, that can be traced through the same facts and figures and forms the opinion that affirmative action is still necessary and useful in promoting diversity and helping minorities to become de-marginalized.
Same facts, but interpretted with a different value system, lead to very different results. You believe average review scores and sales represent the only worthwhile aspect of reality to consider, while I try to include the whole history of the games industry as well as games as appreciable features of culture. Thus your reality is shaped by the concensus of review scores, which is a decent digital indication of the game's value, while others (such as I) try to consider the intangible values of a game's impact on culture, industry, and the market, as these values will have concrete volumes and forms in the future.
Thus, one opinion is based purely in reality but is of little value in discussion of games as a cultural or commercial phenomenon outside of creating a dry backdrop for the major players to act against, because those realms are dominated by incalculable features of the human mind: demand, interest, relevance, memory, etc. This deeper perspective is, however, prone to corruption by faulty definitions and its own admission that the Mind of the Public is impossible to read.
This is, of course, my humble opinion, explained in hopes to NOT create a middle ground, but to show that, fundamentally, opinions are always wrong somehow because, in order to form an opinion, one must ignore the crucial fact that all of the working of humans are an insignificant sputter on the fringes of a galaxy that is not composed of people and ideas but particles and atoms that move irrespective of these thoughts and suggestions.
Thus, by forming an opinion, you ignore the impirical fact that the universe doesn't care. By sharing that opinion, you ignore the fact that people don't ask for your opinion to copy it as thier own, but as more information to adapt into their own opinion to make it relevant to more than their own brain cells. Discussion is naturally a subjective process because whatever pure reality is being referenced must be interpretted through the participant's expectations, experience, and value systems, then conveyed through the participant's capacity to form those filtered ideas into words (or music, or visual art, or whatever medium) for others to recieve. And even there, some kind of noise or static like a language barrier, incomplete expression of the thought, etc, etc, can interfere with the message.
THUS, it's an impirical fact that discussion is only relevant to the participants' perceptions of reality, and little to do with reality, and is thus worthless except to pass the time between now and when one dies. Opinions about opinions? Extra worthless.
And spelling has nothing to do with opinions. It's Spelling.
Your example, however, brings up societal shortcomings and also personal prejudices. These cannot be statistically applied, and therefore have no spot in this discussion.
And you can randomly add any other credentials to a game you'd like. The fact remains that they cannot be statistically proven. They're not relevant when discussing groups of video games.
And you also seem to forget that this is a forum. As this is not a locked section of the forum, anyone can can state anything that is relevant to the discussion within reason. By stating to the contrary, you are ignoring how both the universe, and the person these statements are directed at, are indifferent to your wishes.
And you can randomly add any other credentials to a game you'd like. The fact remains that they cannot be statistically proven. They're not relevant when discussing groups of video games.
And you also seem to forget that this is a forum. As this is not a locked section of the forum, anyone can can state anything that is relevant to the discussion within reason. By stating to the contrary, you are ignoring how both the universe, and the person these statements are directed at, are indifferent to your wishes.
Last edited:
I bring up "societal shortcomings and also personal prejudices" because no human is above them. Everyone is taught what is "right" and what is "wrong" and these are some of the schema that people take so completely for granted that their ability to shape the world they "see" is ignored. Its the ideological equivalent to an optical illusion: you see what is implied, and even if you "know" what's really there, your eyes will still be tricked. It's through this that I hope to see you question the validity of numbers and statistics gathered and interpretted by others, as the "facts" they give you are shaped by their own "societal shortcomings and also personal prejudices" and the motives and agendas that inspired them to collect and create such data. It's incalculable factors like these intentions that inspire me to include the impact of other incalculable factors.
This all presumes, however, that games are art, just as much as movies, music, paintings, etc. As cultural artifacts, they all have more value than a review score. If Halo's review score means everything, then why does it get "Midnight Madness" release events when Soul Calibur's and Metroid Prime's sequels had no such celebration? It could only be a deficit between the game's review scores and their cultural "value."
This all presumes, however, that games are art, just as much as movies, music, paintings, etc. As cultural artifacts, they all have more value than a review score. If Halo's review score means everything, then why does it get "Midnight Madness" release events when Soul Calibur's and Metroid Prime's sequels had no such celebration? It could only be a deficit between the game's review scores and their cultural "value."
Just stop. You can't make an proper analogy that accurately parallels the situation we're discussing.listereo said:
This does not assume that games are art. Art isn't generally divided into genres, they're divided into movements whose merit and quality are wholly subjective. There is no great number of art reviewing publications that can be uniformly combined and averaged. There is no centralized guide to all these reviews (that don't exist). Because of this, you can't compare art and games.
Not to mention the "are games art?" question is an entirely seperate issue.