Community Forums => I'M BACK => Topic started by: wandering on November 08, 2006, 10:22:35 AM
Title: the make a post game
Post by: wandering on November 08, 2006, 10:22:35 AM
The person to make the best post wins.
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Smoke39 on November 08, 2006, 10:52:06 AM
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: ShyGuy on November 08, 2006, 11:03:17 AM
Who's the judge? If it's Wandering, he's the best poster on the whole entire internet!
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: vudu on November 08, 2006, 11:08:50 AM
It makes sense. If you have such a blatant weakness why show it if you don't have to, right? Of course they shouldn't have such a stupid weakness but whatever. I don't care about specs and the general public doesn't even know about them. BUT they're still important. The general public doesn't know the Cube specs. F*ck, I don't even know them and I looked them up when they were revealed. However the general public does think the Cube is underpowered and weaker than even the PS2. This is false but it's a common misconception. How did this idea get into people's heads? Negative word of mouth. Nintendo released realistic figures for the Cube which, although a very honest thing to do, made their console look significantly inferior on paper. So word of mouth spread. Not everyone is looking up gaming on the internet but they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who does and stuff gets spread around as a result. Internet geeks saw the Cube specs were by far the "weakest" and they told their friends the Cube was underpowered and they told their friends and it got spread around as if it's common knowledge even though it's inaccurate. So now Nintendo feels the Rev specs are "irrelevent". Well you only hide stuff when you don't want people to know, right? So obviously Nintendo is hiding weak ass hardware. That plus the "two or three times the Cube" comment just seals the deal. Even if it's false there's enough "evidence" for it to be "true". After all there's no denial from Nintendo on this issue. So it makes no difference if Nintendo hides the specs or not. The Rev is unofficially underpowered and everyone is going to know that by the time the thing's in stores and that's going to make a console that already has to fight for attention that much harder to sell. I'm not saying Nintendo should reveal the specs if they are lower. But just the fact that they have to hide them suggests that maybe they screwed up. I'm very interested in what the price is now. The ONLY reason to skimp on the hardware, at least from the consumer's perspective, is to have a lower price. So the Rev better be significantly cheaper than the competition. And I don't mean cheaper than the X360 launch price. It has to be cheaper than what the X360 costs when the Rev launches. Well realistically, yes, I would agree that only Nintendo would do that. But what did being honest about the Cube specs do for them? All it did was create the misconception that the Cube was underpowered. Specs shouldn't matter just like image shouldn't matter and marketing shouldn't matter. But they do, even if they shouldn't. So Nintendo can't just be all "well we've decided specs don't matter" and have everyone agree to it. Nerds are still going to compare hardware, decide the Rev is underpowered because of hidden specs, and then spread the word that the Rev is the weakest hardware regardless of whether that's true or not. So it make no sense to hide "good" specs because all it can do is benefit them and hiding, no matter what the specs really are, is going to hurt them. The fact that Nintendo is hiding the specs is "proof". Proof enough to declare it the weakest console anyway. And being excluded outright from the hardware discussion isn't that great either. Then the Rev isn't even a contender. It's that "Xbox or PS2" thing all over again. Why the hell not? Sony does it all the time and it hasn't hurt them. We're the only ones who care if Nintendo is honest about things like that anyway and we'll know they're exagerating for publicity purposes. The difference between the graphics probably won't be that noticable in real life. So why not say you can push 50 billion gigaflips or whatever and let those who care about that sort of stuff think you're better than you are? It's not really a lie if the games look and play great. Sony said the PS2 would have TOY STORY graphics! That has a huge lie and everyone caught them on it because the games looked nowhere near that level. But most people don't know what specs even mean. They just see a big number and think it's good. So give them a big number and then deliver great graphics and they'll be none the wiser. Nintendo themselves have said that the jump in graphics is shrinking. So if no one can see the difference then they'll be fine. But having this big ??? regarding the specs makes it look like they're hiding something. So why not kill the underpowered rumour and then the games really will speak for themselves. The multiple console features sounds pretty cool. I probably would never use it but I still like the fact that the option is there if I want it. Nintendo traditionally has been really inflexible regarding rarely-used functionality. It's like if 90% of the userbase won't use it they won't bother to support it. So it's good to see them including such a feature because a few years ago they would probably never have even considered it. No games shown until 2006? Hey Nintendo. You do realize there's this Xbox 360 thing being released this month that has, you know, games and screenshots and hype and stuff and is like a direct competitor trying to steal customers from you, right? Ever thought of, I don't know, releasing at least a f*cking screenshot to try to get people to actually know the Rev exists. I understand that they want people to play the games the first time they see them but the thing is if the games don't look pretty enough to stand on their own in screenshots then they're not going to be able to compete against the X360 or PS3 anyway. TV and print ads are probably the most common videogame ads and those cannot convey gameplay. The game has to look good to get people's attention. That's what draws them to the store demo or convinces them to rent the game. Why was Donkey Kong Country such a big hit? Because it had amazing graphics that got people's attention and when they tried the game out the gameplay delivered. A lot of people say gameplay over graphics but I think gameplay AND graphics are important. Nintendo wants to attract portions of the general public that don't play games. How do you get their attention? Well great visuals usually helps. Final Fantasy VII's famous commercial didn't show blocky polygons menu fighting. Why? Why can't a Rev game play great yet also look good in screenshots? If the games require one to actually play them in order to build interest then the Rev is screwed because trying a game requires effort and the general public won't put in the effort unless something that translates through television or a picture grabs them by the balls first. There is no reason why Rev games can't wow someone based on screens alone. No reason aside from any inane Nintendo stubborness anyway. If the games look like ass but play great then, yeah, waiting until they can demonstrate them fully makes sense. But there's no good reason WHY the games have to be that way. It makes sense. If you have such a blatant weakness why show it if you don't have to, right? Of course they shouldn't have such a stupid weakness but whatever. I don't care about specs and the general public doesn't even know about them. BUT they're still important. The general public doesn't know the Cube specs. F*ck, I don't even know them and I looked them up when they were revealed. However the general public does think the Cube is underpowered and weaker than even the PS2. This is false but it's a common misconception. How did this idea get into people's heads? Negative word of mouth. Nintendo released realistic figures for the Cube which, although a very honest thing to do, made their console look significantly inferior on paper. So word of mouth spread. Not everyone is looking up gaming on the internet but they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who does and stuff gets spread around as a result. Internet geeks saw the Cube specs were by far the "weakest" and they told their friends the Cube was underpowered and they told their friends and it got spread around as if it's common knowledge even though it's inaccurate. So now Nintendo feels the Rev specs are "irrelevent". Well you only hide stuff when you don't want people to know, right? So obviously Nintendo is hiding weak ass hardware. That plus the "two or three times the Cube" comment just seals the deal. Even if it's false there's enough "evidence" for it to be "true". After all there's no denial from Nintendo on this issue. So it makes no difference if Nintendo hides the specs or not. The Rev is unofficially underpowered and everyone is going to know that by the time the thing's in stores and that's going to make a console that already has to fight for attention that much harder to sell. I'm not saying Nintendo should reveal the specs if they are lower. But just the fact that they have to hide them suggests that maybe they screwed up. I'm very interested in what the price is now. The ONLY reason to skimp on the hardware, at least from the consumer's perspective, is to have a lower price. So the Rev better be significantly cheaper than the competition. And I don't mean cheaper than the X360 launch price. It has to be cheaper than what the X360 costs when the Rev launches. Well realistically, yes, I would agree that only Nintendo would do that. But what did being honest about the Cube specs do for them? All it did was create the misconception that the Cube was underpowered. Specs shouldn't matter just like image shouldn't matter and marketing shouldn't matter. But they do, even if they shouldn't. So Nintendo can't just be all "well we've decided specs don't matter" and have everyone agree to it. Nerds are still going to compare hardware, decide the Rev is underpowered because of hidden specs, and then spread the word that the Rev is the weakest hardware regardless of whether that's true or not. So it make no sense to hide "good" specs because all it can do is benefit them and hiding, no matter what the specs really are, is going to hurt them. The fact that Nintendo is hiding the specs is "proof". Proof enough to declare it the weakest console anyway. And being excluded outright from the hardware discussion isn't that great either. Then the Rev isn't even a contender. It's that "Xbox or PS2" thing all over again. Why the hell not? Sony does it all the time and it hasn't hurt them. We're the only ones who care if Nintendo is honest about things like that anyway and we'll know they're exagerating for publicity purposes. The difference between the graphics probably won't be that noticable in real life. So why not say you can push 50 billion gigaflips or whatever and let those who care about that sort of stuff think you're better than you are? It's not really a lie if the games look and play great. Sony said the PS2 would have TOY STORY graphics! That has a huge lie and everyone caught them on it because the games looked nowhere near that level. But most people don't know what specs even mean. They just see a big number and think it's good. So give them a big number and then deliver great graphics and they'll be none the wiser. Nintendo themselves have said that the jump in graphics is shrinking. So if no one can see the difference then they'll be fine. But having this big ??? regarding the specs makes it look like they're hiding something. So why not kill the underpowered rumour and then the games really will speak for themselves. The multiple console features sounds pretty cool. I probably would never use it but I still like the fact that the option is there if I want it. Nintendo traditionally has been really inflexible regarding rarely-used functionality. It's like if 90% of the userbase won't use it they won't bother to support it. So it's good to see them including such a feature because a few years ago they would probably never have even considered it. No games shown until 2006? Hey Nintendo. You do realize there's this Xbox 360 thing being released this month that has, you know, games and screenshots and hype and stuff and is like a direct competitor trying to steal customers from you, right? Ever thought of, I don't know, releasing at least a f*cking screenshot to try to get people to actually know the Rev exists. I understand that they want people to play the games the first time they see them but the thing is if the games don't look pretty enough to stand on their own in screenshots then they're not going to be able to compete against the X360 or PS3 anyway. TV and print ads are probably the most common videogame ads and those cannot convey gameplay. The game has to look good to get people's attention. That's what draws them to the store demo or convinces them to rent the game. Why was Donkey Kong Country such a big hit? Because it had amazing graphics that got people's attention and when they tried the game out the gameplay delivered. A lot of people say gameplay over graphics but I think gameplay AND graphics are important. Nintendo wants to attract portions of the general public that don't play games. How do you get their attention? Well great visuals usually helps. Final Fantasy VII's famous commercial didn't show blocky polygons menu fighting. Why? Why can't a Rev game play great yet also look good in screenshots? If the games require one to actually play them in order to build interest then the Rev is screwed because trying a game requires effort and the general public won't put in the effort unless something that translates through television or a picture grabs them by the balls first. There is no reason why Rev games can't wow someone based on screens alone. No reason aside from any inane Nintendo stubborness anyway. If the games look like ass but play great then, yeah, waiting until they can demonstrate them fully makes sense. But there's no good reason WHY the games have to be that way. It makes sense. If you have such a blatant weakness why show it if you don't have to, right? Of course they shouldn't have such a stupid weakness but whatever. I don't care about specs and the general public doesn't even know about them. BUT they're still important. The general public doesn't know the Cube specs. F*ck, I don't even know them and I looked them up when they were revealed. However the general public does think the Cube is underpowered and weaker than even the PS2. This is false but it's a common misconception. How did this idea get into people's heads? Negative word of mouth. Nintendo released realistic figures for the Cube which, although a very honest thing to do, made their console look significantly inferior on paper. So word of mouth spread. Not everyone is looking up gaming on the internet but they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who does and stuff gets spread around as a result. Internet geeks saw the Cube specs were by far the "weakest" and they told their friends the Cube was underpowered and they told their friends and it got spread around as if it's common knowledge even though it's inaccurate. So now Nintendo feels the Rev specs are "irrelevent". Well you only hide stuff when you don't want people to know, right? So obviously Nintendo is hiding weak ass hardware. That plus the "two or three times the Cube" comment just seals the deal. Even if it's false there's enough "evidence" for it to be "true". After all there's no denial from Nintendo on this issue. So it makes no difference if Nintendo hides the specs or not. The Rev is unofficially underpowered and everyone is going to know that by the time the thing's in stores and that's going to make a console that already has to fight for attention that much harder to sell. I'm not saying Nintendo should reveal the specs if they are lower. But just the fact that they have to hide them suggests that maybe they screwed up. I'm very interested in what the price is now. The ONLY reason to skimp on the hardware, at least from the consumer's perspective, is to have a lower price. So the Rev better be significantly cheaper than the competition. And I don't mean cheaper than the X360 launch price. It has to be cheaper than what the X360 costs when the Rev launches. Well realistically, yes, I would agree that only Nintendo would do that. But what did being honest about the Cube specs do for them? All it did was create the misconception that the Cube was underpowered. Specs shouldn't matter just like image shouldn't matter and marketing shouldn't matter. But they do, even if they shouldn't. So Nintendo can't just be all "well we've decided specs don't matter" and have everyone agree to it. Nerds are still going to compare hardware, decide the Rev is underpowered because of hidden specs, and then spread the word that the Rev is the weakest hardware regardless of whether that's true or not. So it make no sense to hide "good" specs because all it can do is benefit them and hiding, no matter what the specs really are, is going to hurt them. The fact that Nintendo is hiding the specs is "proof". Proof enough to declare it the weakest console anyway. And being excluded outright from the hardware discussion isn't that great either. Then the Rev isn't even a contender. It's that "Xbox or PS2" thing all over again. Why the hell not? Sony does it all the time and it hasn't hurt them. We're the only ones who care if Nintendo is honest about things like that anyway and we'll know they're exagerating for publicity purposes. The difference between the graphics probably won't be that noticable in real life. So why not say you can push 50 billion gigaflips or whatever and let those who care about that sort of stuff think you're better than you are? It's not really a lie if the games look and play great. Sony said the PS2 would have TOY STORY graphics! That has a huge lie and everyone caught them on it because the games looked nowhere near that level. But most people don't know what specs even mean. They just see a big number and think it's good. So give them a big number and then deliver great graphics and they'll be none the wiser. Nintendo themselves have said that the jump in graphics is shrinking. So if no one can see the difference then they'll be fine. But having this big ??? regarding the specs makes it look like they're hiding something. So why not kill the underpowered rumour and then the games really will speak for themselves. The multiple console features sounds pretty cool. I probably would never use it but I still like the fact that the option is there if I want it. Nintendo traditionally has been really inflexible regarding rarely-used functionality. It's like if 90% of the userbase won't use it they won't bother to support it. So it's good to see them including such a feature because a few years ago they would probably never have even considered it. No games shown until 2006? Hey Nintendo. You do realize there's this Xbox 360 thing being released this month that has, you know, games and screenshots and hype and stuff and is like a direct competitor trying to steal customers from you, right? Ever thought of, I don't know, releasing at least a f*cking screenshot to try to get people to actually know the Rev exists. I understand that they want people to play the games the first time they see them but the thing is if the games don't look pretty enough to stand on their own in screenshots then they're not going to be able to compete against the X360 or PS3 anyway. TV and print ads are probably the most common videogame ads and those cannot convey gameplay. The game has to look good to get people's attention. That's what draws them to the store demo or convinces them to rent the game. Why was Donkey Kong Country such a big hit? Because it had amazing graphics that got people's attention and when they tried the game out the gameplay delivered. A lot of people say gameplay over graphics but I think gameplay AND graphics are important. Nintendo wants to attract portions of the general public that don't play games. How do you get their attention? Well great visuals usually helps. Final Fantasy VII's famous commercial didn't show blocky polygons menu fighting. Why? Why can't a Rev game play great yet also look good in screenshots? If the games require one to actually play them in order to build interest then the Rev is screwed because trying a game requires effort and the general public won't put in the effort unless something that translates through television or a picture grabs them by the balls first. There is no reason why Rev games can't wow someone based on screens alone. No reason aside from any inane Nintendo stubborness anyway. If the games look like ass but play great then, yeah, waiting until they can demonstrate them fully makes sense. But there's no good reason WHY the games have to be that way.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on November 08, 2006, 11:21:30 AM
I just died a little inside. No, wait. It's just gas.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: stevey on November 08, 2006, 11:39:19 AM
bump
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: wandering on November 08, 2006, 12:03:27 PM
He hasn't posted yet, but I think Karl should win!
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Mario on November 08, 2006, 12:19:26 PM
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on November 08, 2006, 12:28:31 PM
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on November 08, 2006, 02:11:55 PM
Quote Originally posted by: wandering He hasn't posted yet, but I think Karl should win!
I agree with this statement!
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: ShyGuy on November 08, 2006, 02:24:10 PM
I wish Cattank wasn't banned, cause he could win
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 08, 2006, 02:30:25 PM
Ban the Banning Banner.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 08, 2006, 02:31:42 PM
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 08, 2006, 05:12:53 PM
any excuse to go through my photobucket account
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 08, 2006, 05:18:20 PM
Needs a picture of you that isn't three years old...
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 08, 2006, 05:19:46 PM
Most recent
also, that apple was DAMN TINY.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: ThePerm on November 08, 2006, 05:30:35 PM
Best
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: segagamer12 on November 10, 2006, 01:54:25 PM
I most certianly am now and always will be the best there ever is so get over it all of you.
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Khushrenada on November 10, 2006, 03:14:55 PM
Well, I don't know who's going to win this competition but we definitely have a loser! Congratulations Segagamer12! Hi-yoooooo!
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: segagamer12 on November 10, 2006, 04:08:42 PM
Yeah now I remember why I stayed away from the Funhouse before. This place is brutal and is a dangerous place to be stepping. Oh and Sega is the shiznit foolz
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Garnee on November 10, 2006, 05:24:36 PM
SUM JUNK LOWL
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Smoke39 on November 10, 2006, 05:47:48 PM
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Smoke39 on November 10, 2006, 06:04:29 PM
TOO SMALL NOT INTERESTED
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: wandering on November 10, 2006, 06:12:34 PM
Bigger isn't always better.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Smoke39 on November 10, 2006, 06:14:03 PM
I like big boobs.
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Crimm on November 10, 2006, 07:42:51 PM
DO I WIN?!
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Khushrenada on November 10, 2006, 07:57:23 PM
Uhhh sure. It doesn't look like this topic is going to get any better. Heck, now massive boob pictures have started coming in.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Smoke39 on November 10, 2006, 08:21:16 PM
Would you prefer I post yaoi instead?
Sheesh, there's no pleasing you people. O:<
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Khushrenada on November 10, 2006, 08:37:09 PM
It's just a joke Smoke. Like my post about SegaGamer. Just a pithy observation about a previous poster. My idea of wit.
Title: RE:the make a post game
Post by: Smoke39 on November 10, 2006, 09:32:59 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Khushrenada It's just a joke Smoke.
I know. I don't actually care about pleasing you.
Title: RE: the make a post game
Post by: Plugabugz on November 11, 2006, 02:58:52 AM
The tax on potato waffles has been increased to seven leaping penguins, the taskforce should therefore contract athletes foot and flash an ankle at a passing brussels sprout.
