Historical Revisionism in Video Game and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Louis_Cypher]

The N64 was/is (I still have the fucking piece of shit at my dads lol) THE worst console I've ever owned hands down.

The worst purchase I ever made was a Nintendo console too. Against my better judgment and experience. I knew it was not worth it. They can have really bad value for money. Especially if you own any other major system at all, it destroys any incentive to get their few third-party cross-platform releases. Something like a £300 outlay, then £50 per game, which never seem to get discounted, and all you reliably get per-generation is one blockbuster Mario and Zelda; not a 1000s-strong monster catalogue full of hidden gems like the PS1, PS2, Xbox 360 or PS4. So a gamer buying first-hand, near launch, not resorting to emulators or anything, wanting the hardware, can potentially spend £450 on a catalogue of three games, and there is barely anything exclusive outside Zelda and Metroid to pull you in. You potentially get a three-game machine, never used again, for close to £500.

Contrast with an almost infinite back-catalogue library on PC, or a thousands-strong library on a classic Playstation.

Nintendo are famous for having lost their stable of third-party titles around the end of the SNES lifespan, either due to studio politics, or because the CD drive on the PS1 was more appealing to developers, due to the cheapness of CD printing, over cartridge making. The Gamecube was alright, the last serious time they competed with Sony or Microsoft head-on, but still no PS2. They tried to resolve it with the Switch by offering lots of download-store indie games, which is why PC stuff like Stardew Valley often appears on 'best Switch games' lists. The Steam Deck though, of course obliterates this small curated indie library.

It's like the outlay on a cheap gaming PC, for something of vastly less utility. £500 might be okay as a sacrifice for a dedicated gaming hobbyist, who wants original hardware for a host of reasons, but the final nail in the coffin, is that tiny exclusive catalogue of games. It's like daylight robbery when many retro machines have hundreds of solid games going for 10p on ebay. I don't want Nintendo to go bust or anything, they are a part of gaming culture, but it is completely pointless for 'experienced' gamers to own their machines, unless they are hardware purists. As others have said, it's also now Sony and Microsoft have made their consoles so PC-like that there is hardly any point owning one. I started out as a PC gamer, and it's looking like this generation I don't need a console for anything at all. I'm likely never buying a Nintendo system again, barring a major historical change in their business, or an utterly mad lineup of games.

---

I might post a few more loltard clickbait gaming lists:

15 Best PC Games Of All Time, Ranked (TheGamer, 2023)​

15. Undertale
14. BioShock
13. Apex Legends
12. Sid Meier’s Civilization II
11. Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn
10. Persona 5 Royal
9. Minecraft
8. World of Warcraft
7. Grand Theft Auto V
6. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
5. Mass Effect 2
4. The Sims
3. Portal 2
2. Half-Life 2
1. Disco Elysium: The Final Cut

Need anything be said?

 

[Nutmeg]

F-Zero, not one other game would interest me to play now.

Yeah F-Zero is always fun. As is Starfox 64, which has a really high skill ceiling when playing for score.

But Sin and Punishment is the N64 game I play the most, and it's in my top 20 arcade format games, easily.



The other two treasure games don't quite reach the same heights, but I really like Mischief Makers. Really fun to puzzle out S rank clears on the (short!) stages. Great mugging simulator with super cute robot Marina.

I've also heard good things about the N64 version of Bangai-O, for scoring, though I've only played the Dreamcast game and only briefly. The whole series is interesting for being a modern take on the obscure PC-88 cult classic Hover Attack, recently remade for PC by MNM.



MNM being one of my favorite developers, responsible for Slap Fight MD and Gage which I believe was translated by our very own MrRichard999. Just check their catalogue https://www.mobygames.com/company/10078/mindware-corp/games/ absolutely patrician taste.

 

[Tehdagah]

Oh BTW, while we are talking about Nintendo sacred cows, let me just say something about "Ocarina of Time", and it's worshippers.

The famous transition between 2D fouth-generation consoles (beautiful late sprites), and 3D fifth generation consoles (ugly ass early polygons), had the console companies forcing all their mascots into ugly 3D games. The worst of course was Sonic. He clearly only works as a 2D gameplay concept, but was forced into 3D games to disasterous results. The best was probably Metroid Prime. The Saturn was a 2D powerhouse, so Sonic could have had a long career as a late-2D game like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, but that is another story.

But "Ocarina of Time", despite being hailed as some childhood epic, a watershed of games design, was no flawless transition, and is inferior in a lot of ways to "A Link to the Past". I would argue that Zelda in fact, like Sonic, was a pretty ackward transition, working better in 2D, although fixable, and subsequently done better. I found OoT annoying in many ways, for reasons that this random YouTuber explains quite well in this video - including the Z-axis targeting being immersion breaking compared to the the open isometric combat of the 2D Zelda games:

Egoraptor ignores tutorials (he's 'too smart' for them) and then 5 minutes later is like "wtf am I supposed to do??? This game is poorly designed!!!"

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

It's like the outlay on a cheap gaming PC, for something of vastly less utility. £500 might be okay as a sacrifice for a dedicated gaming hobbyist, who wants original hardware for a host of reasons, but the final nail in the coffin, is that tiny exclusive catalogue of games. It's like daylight robbery when many retro machines have hundreds of solid games going for 10p on ebay. I don't want Nintendo to go bust or anything, they are a part of gaming culture, but it is completely pointless for 'experienced' gamers to own their machines, unless they are hardware purists. As others have said, it's also now Sony and Microsoft have made their consoles so PC-like that there is hardly any point owning one. I started out as a PC gamer, and it's looking like this generation I don't need a console for anything at all. I'm likely never buying a Nintendo system again, barring a major historical change in their business, or an utterly mad lineup of games.

You can get GBA sized emulation handhelds running up to the PS1/PSP no problem for about £50s now. They're really solid things to keep in your bag when you're doing general stuff. Most people probably just use their phone but I like a dedicated machine to save battery.

Is there any reason to buy a low-mid range PC any more when the deck exists? It's cheaper and if you get a USB hub works as both a low end PC and a portable for a decent cost.

The other two treasure games don't quite reach the same heights, but I really like Mischief Makers. Really fun to puzzle out S rank clears on the (short!) stages. Great mugging simulator with super cute robot Marina.

Mischief makers was hyped quite a bit pre-release. When it came out it wasn't very appealing and flopped. Then became a mainstay on TEH BEST GAMES EVAH lists.

 

[Nutmeg]

When it came out it wasn't very appealing and flopped.

Because it doesn't fit gamer expectations of a platformer.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

Because it doesn't fit gamer expectations of a platformer.

 

[Nutmeg]

Because it doesn't fit gamer expectations of a platformer.

It's been a *very* long time since I've accepted that my own tastes and that of the broad majority of gamers, including e.g. the majority of gamers on this forum (but certainly not all!) have diverged.

 

[Azdul]

Nintendo are famous for having lost their stable of third-party titles around the end of the SNES lifespan, either due to studio politics, or because the CD drive on the PS1 was more appealing to developers, due to the cheapness of CD printing, over cartridge making.

Or because Nintendo business practices lost 3rd party developers tons of money ?

They had to order cartridges at > 20$ a piece months in advance. When sales collapsed at the end of NES / SNES commercial life - some Japanese companies lost more than they've ever earned releasing titles on Nintendo platforms.

Some sweared to never release anything on Nintendo platform again - and kept their promise for years.

Cartridges are not inherently expensive. Unless Nintendo has exclusive rights to manufacture them.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

It's been a *very* long time since I've accepted that my own tastes and that of the broad majority of gamers, including e.g. the majority of gamers on this forum (but certainly not all!) have diverged.

Nothing wrong with that. But Mischief makers came out when 2d platformers were struggling so it wasn't going to get much traction either way.

Or because Nintendo business practices lost 3rd party developers tons of money ?

They tried to kill the industry repeatedly. It's weird no one discusses how bad Nintendo were (and are). They're on par with Disney and 2000s microsoft if not worse.

 

[Falksi]

The N64 was/is (I still have the fucking piece of shit at my dads lol) THE worst console I've ever owned hands down.

The worst purchase I ever made was a Nintendo console too. Against my better judgment and experience. I knew it was not worth it. They can have really bad value for money. Especially if you own any other major system at all, it destroys any incentive to get their few third-party cross-platform releases. Something like a £300 outlay, then £50 per game, which never seem to get discounted, and all you reliably get per-generation is one blockbuster Mario and Zelda; not a 1000s-strong monster catalogue full of hidden gems like the PS1, PS2, Xbox 360 or PS4. So a gamer buying first-hand, near launch, not resorting to emulators or anything, wanting the hardware, can potentially spend £450 on a catalogue of three games, and there is barely anything exclusive outside Zelda and Metroid to pull you in. You potentially get a three-game machine, never used again, for close to £500.

Contrast with an almost infinite back-catalogue library on PC, or a thousands-strong library on a classic Playstation.

Nintendo are famous for having lost their stable of third-party titles around the end of the SNES lifespan, either due to studio politics, or because the CD drive on the PS1 was more appealing to developers, due to the cheapness of CD printing, over cartridge making. The Gamecube was alright, the last serious time they competed with Sony or Microsoft head-on, but still no PS2. They tried to resolve it with the Switch by offering lots of download-store indie games, which is why PC stuff like Stardew Valley often appears on 'best Switch games' lists. The Steam Deck though, of course obliterates this small curated indie library.

It's like the outlay on a cheap gaming PC, for something of vastly less utility. £500 might be okay as a sacrifice for a dedicated gaming hobbyist, who wants original hardware for a host of reasons, but the final nail in the coffin, is that tiny exclusive catalogue of games. It's like daylight robbery when many retro machines have hundreds of solid games going for 10p on ebay. I don't want Nintendo to go bust or anything, they are a part of gaming culture, but it is completely pointless for 'experienced' gamers to own their machines, unless they are hardware purists. As others have said, it's also now Sony and Microsoft have made their consoles so PC-like that there is hardly any point owning one. I started out as a PC gamer, and it's looking like this generation I don't need a console for anything at all. I'm likely never buying a Nintendo system again, barring a major historical change in their business, or an utterly mad lineup of games.

---

I might post a few more loltard clickbait gaming lists:

15 Best PC Games Of All Time, Ranked (TheGamer, 2023)​

15. Undertale
14. BioShock
13. Apex Legends
12. Sid Meier’s Civilization II
11. Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn
10. Persona 5 Royal
9. Minecraft
8. World of Warcraft
7. Grand Theft Auto V
6. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
5. Mass Effect 2
4. The Sims
3. Portal 2
2. Half-Life 2
1. Disco Elysium: The Final Cut

Need anything be said?

That's a great summary.

In the UK most Nintendo games were usually 25-50% more expensive than their rivals back in the 90's, and when I saw Tears of the Kingdom get a $70 price tag I just pissed myself laughing. It's miles off modern performance, recycles a ton of stuff from BOTW to the point you'd be forgiven for mistaking it for a DLC, and as a game it's outright dull too. And it sold in droves and faster than lightening too, you really can't fault Nintendo for how they have brainwashed their sheeple cult followers lol, as a business they've nurtured the perfect customer base.

As for that list, it's at least better than the other two but yeah, still depressing. Mass Effect 2 is another Red Flag for me on these lists too. It's not got the Roleplaying depth or exploration of the first game, and it's not got the more polished gameplay of the third entry either, it sits in it's own limbo with a story that's more of a side-story than anything. When people pick that out as the best of the trilogy it cringe-time.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

In the UK most Nintendo games were usually 25-50% more expensive than their rivals back in the 90's, and when I saw Tears of the Kingdom get a $70 price tag I just pissed myself laughing. It's miles off modern performance, recycles a ton of stuff from BOTW to the point you'd be forgiven for mistaking it for a DLC, and as a game it's outright dull too. And it sold in droves and faster than lightening too, you really can't fault Nintendo for how they have brainwashed their sheeple cult followers lol, as a business they've nurtured the perfect customer base.

£60 is becoming the new normal prize for games in the UK but no ones playing RRP because every where has them on sale except the Nintendo official store. Isn't CoD like £65-70 now?

 

[Louis_Cypher]

£60 is becoming the new normal prize for games in the UK but no ones playing RRP because every where has them on sale except the Nintendo official store. Isn't CoD like £65-70 now?

Yeah the Nintendo store seems to never have discounts, unlike Steam/PSN/GOG, etc - they demand full price for something like BOTW (£59.99). I saw Diablo IV price on PSN the other day, it was £70 discounted to £49 (EDIT: £41) or something. This is the reason they want digital games of course; no more 99p physical second-hand games on ebay; the lowest something will ever go, even after ten years, is £9.99.

 

[Lucumo]

Or they could have just used a controller for the PC. No need for a console.

I mean...did you really expect any better?

How do I know you grew up without any friends?

Apparently you don't. If you read what I replied to you earlier in the thread, you would know better So my point still stands that they didn't need a console to play a football game with a controller (alone or together).

The last football game I owned was Fifa 99 for the PS1, which had been a Christmas gift, but I was still pretty decent at PES throughout the PS2 era just from all the times I had to sit down on a sofa with a controller in my hands. Yeah, you could play it on PC, too. But most people weren't interested in a PC for games, they just wanted a console to play PES and FIFA easily. That's a pretty good use case for a console. I wouldn't "expect more" from them, because they weren't gamers.

Huh? You wrote, specifically about PC gamers, this:

I had a Mega Drive before a PC, because they were very expensive, but by the mid 90s most middle class kids had both a PC and a console. Since football/soccer games are almost universally enjoyed here, nearly every PC gamer I knew in the 90s and beyond could at least play PES or FIFA with a controller.

...to which I replied the above. Not sure why you bring non-/casual-gamers into this now.

Ok, let's rewind before this turns into a bitch slapfest:
1. Jarlfrank claims only peasants owned consoles.
2. I said it's not my experience. Most middle-class people by the mid-90s owned both because it was fun to play arcade style games with friends. Consoles were also cheaper.
3. I also claimed that nearly every PC gamer onwards(from 90s to today) could play with a controller because of how universally enjoyed football games were.
4. You said that you could play those games on PC, but you couldn't expect much from people who did it on console (a.k.a they're stupid, at least that's how I understood it).
5. I called you a friendless loser for making that assumption, because playing these games on console was unavoidable if you had friends, and most of those friends wouldn't be gamers who owned a PC for gaming.

The misunderstanding probably comes from 3. I didn't claim that nearly every PC gamer from the 90s onward owned a console to play games, only that they knew how to play them on console. Specifically, even those who didn't own consoles to play arcade games (see 2) could play football games on console.

I'd like to add that many PC gamers owned games on consoles even if they those games were on the PC, because they expected to play with friends on the sofa. You don't necessarily want to bring people to your room to play on your PC.

Clearly you misread what I wrote then.

Regarding 5., I already pointed you towards my reply towards you earlier in the thread (see page 3). There you would have also seen that 1. is entirely irrelevant in our discussion. However, 4. is the crux of the problem. You apparently dragged my "I mean...did you really expect any better?" into the whole thing, despite me leaving space (a separate paragraph) to reply to your other separate paragraph which was about Americans (Digital Foundry) ignoring somewhat non-relevant (for Americans) racing games (see post 205).
The point I made was actually twofold. 1. The "nearly every PC gamer I knew in the 90s and beyond" could have just as easily played football on the PC, no console necessary. 2. (less direct and more a general consideration) The PC had lots of controllers in general which is another point that somehow gets always omitted. Too many people always go: "Oh, X genre plays so much better on a console", despite the PC having console controllers and much more on them.

The N64 was/is (I still have the fucking piece of shit at my dads lol) THE worst console I've ever owned hands down. Playing Mario 64 completely gutted me, I was a big fan of Super Mario World and this clunky, awkward camera battle that was Mario 64 played like shit in comparison to it. Turok followed....crap, not a patch on PC FPS games. Ocarina of Time followed...a HUGE downgrade fro Link To The Past, again clunky and cumbersome with the difficulty dialed back to infant level for the puzzles and enemies. Goldeneye followed....liked it!!!....and then Hexen 2 & Quake 2 came out and blew it away very shortly after I tried several other games but the only game I ever truly liked for the system was F-Zero, not one other game would interest me to play now.

It works well as a party console for birthdays and such. The Mario Party games, Super Smash Bros. 64, Mario Kart 64 and Micro Machines 64 Turbo are pretty much all you need.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Oh BTW, while we are talking about Nintendo sacred cows, let me just say something about "Ocarina of Time", and it's worshippers.

OoT generates some weird revisionism in general, which is funny. Nintendildos often point out that OoT invented lock-on systems (what they call z-targetting to make it sound fancier), but when you tell them the mechanic existed in previous games, they get angry and tell you "well, they don't count because they weren't as POLISHED as OoT", absolute goalpost moving with a good dose of subjectivity. Also, they love to name devs citing OoT as their biggest inspiration, like the GTA3 devs. When you ask them how in the hell does GTA 3 play like OoT at all, they start going "uuuuhhh... do you KNOW more about VIDEO GAMES than actual DEVELOPERS??????? checkmate". So you point out the terrible opinions devs often have about video games, coming from their mouths, their twitters, and Nintendildos get pissy again. It's all a fucking cult and if you don't recognize OoT as the holy trinity, you're being an heretic in their eyes.

Ha, glad it's not me that has just experienced that Nintendrone train of thought. They do the same thing with the D-Pad, it's shoulder buttons and the analogue stick. It's usually...

Nintendrone: "Nintendo are amazing because they invented the D-Pad/shoulder buttons/analogue stick!"

Me: No they didn't, the D-Pad was on the Intellivision pad first, and both shoulder buttons and analogue stick on the SEGA XE-1AP before the SNES got released never mind the N64, with the Vectrex had an analogue stick preceding those too.

Nintendrone: Uh...yeah....but Nintendo's versions polished them and made them popular!

Me: Well wait a sec, didn't other companies then polish those things even further and popularize them even more? Like literally no-one buys a controller shaped like the N64's for their PC, almost everyone buys one shaped like the X-Box controller. Why pick out a random point in the evolution of that product to champion?

It's just that fucking weird baby-minded cult mentality.

And Ocarina of Time is my most disapointing game ever. Got it for X-mas '98 and spent the entire day bored out of my head playing it. Dull AF.

In fact for me either of the first Star Control games simply have to be in the top 10. That's a personal preference, but even objectively speaking I don't think there is a better example of competitive gaming balance. Even though I love the Street Fighter 2 series, I really don't get how that can feature at number 27 and what is essentially Street Fighter in space....but with an additional layer of strategy, tactics and roleplaying...can be ignored in the whole 100.

Putting lots of hours personally into a game doesn't make it top 10 for everyone. Top 100 should be something more universal than our own niche autism sadly. I've put infinite hours into Japanese mecha tactics games and I wouldn't list them as top 100. I enjoy them for specific reasons and most people won't.

If those Japanese mecha tactics games are top quality then they should feature. These lists should be defined by quality and by people who have played a ton of games to comparatively rank them fairly, and who are also self aware of their own bias and preferences. that's half the problem with these lists, the so called "experts" haven't played half the games on them, never mind those which don't make the cut.

Star Control's first two games are top tier and I defy anyone who gets into them to not get addicted to them, or come aware from them loving the experience. When you've 8-12 mates over regularly, all who own different systems like different genres and are into different things, and all of them are fighting for the next turn to get on Star Control then you know you've something special which should 100% be included.

And the only reason people don't get into these games is because they are low-level mongs, and low level mong gaming opinions should be outright ignored, else you end up with shit like the list Lou posted from IGN.

Nintendo fans are all queers, child molesters, nappy wearers and women.

 

[Nutmeg]

Nintendo fans are all queers, child molesters, nappy wearers and women.

Really? I didn't know you were a Nintendo fan.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

£60 is becoming the new normal prize for games in the UK but no ones playing RRP because every where has them on sale except the Nintendo official store. Isn't CoD like £65-70 now?

Yeah the Nintendo store seems to never have discounts, unlike Steam/PSN/GOG, etc - they demand full price for something like BOTW (£59.99). I saw Diablo IV price on PSN the other day, it was £70 discounted to £49 (EDIT: £41) or something. This is the reason they want digital games of course; no more 99p physical second-hand games on ebay; the lowest something will ever go, even after ten years, is £9.99.

Store sales and key shops give you about the same price tags if you're willing to wait but it's no where near as fuck as rummaging through a bargain bin or doing to a stop and picking up a game based just on the box alone. It's a lost experience..

The point I made was actually twofold. 1. The "nearly every PC gamer I knew in the 90s and beyond" could have just as easily played football on the PC, no console necessary. 2. (less direct and more a general consideration) The PC had lots of controllers in general which is another point that somehow gets always omitted. Too many people always go: "Oh, X genre plays so much better on a console", despite the PC having console controllers and much more on them.

Have you tried hooking up multiple controllers to a PC? Even today half the games won't recognise them or think they're the same device. PC gaming seriously needs to fix it's weird input device issues. Trying to find coop games to play on PC is often annoying because of this while consoles you plug and play and it's done.

 

[Lucumo]

The point I made was actually twofold. 1. The "nearly every PC gamer I knew in the 90s and beyond" could have just as easily played football on the PC, no console necessary. 2. (less direct and more a general consideration) The PC had lots of controllers in general which is another point that somehow gets always omitted. Too many people always go: "Oh, X genre plays so much better on a console", despite the PC having console controllers and much more on them.

Have you tried hooking up multiple controllers to a PC? Even today half the games won't recognise them or think they're the same device. PC gaming seriously needs to fix it's weird input device issues. Trying to find coop games to play on PC is often annoying because of this while consoles you plug and play and it's done.

Yes. No clue, never had any issues with the games I/we wanted to play. But that was also back in the day. Nowadays it might be worse, especially with Microsoft's meddling (pushing Xbox shit/controls on the PC).

 

[Silverfish]

Nintendo fans are all queers, child molesters, nappy wearers and women.

When you get filtered by the water temple and can't get over it.

 

[Vic]

15. Undertale
14. BioShock
13. Apex Legends
12. Sid Meier’s Civilization II
11. Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn
10. Persona 5 Royal
9. Minecraft
8. World of Warcraft
7. Grand Theft Auto V
6. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
5. Mass Effect 2
4. The Sims
3. Portal 2
2. Half-Life 2
1. Disco Elysium: The Final Cut

you know, it's actually you who is retarded by paying these lists any mind.

How many people have voted on this list? You need sample size to get accurate results that aren't heavily skewed like this. I tried to find a good database for games with user rankings but there doesn't seem to be a anything out there like for other media, or at least I couldn't find one. The closest is to sort metacritic by userscore, but this list is really a mess because they don't have a good ranking algorithm. Still, you'll get much better results sifting through this list than you would looking at these shitty articles.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

you know, it's actually you who is retarded by paying these lists any mind.

Oh what a suprise that somebody said this. The context of the thread is that we are looking at how historical revisionism has altered the public's view of history, and they are just examples for general illustrative purposes.

 

[Vic]

you know, it's actually you who is retarded by paying these lists any mind.

Oh what a suprise that somebody said this. The context of the thread is that we are looking at how historical revisionism has altered the public's view of history, and they are just examples for general illustrative purposes.

no these are just buzzwords to drive SEO traffic or generated from a small audience with no statistical significance. These lists are fads with the value of scribbles written on toilet paper.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

you know, it's actually you who is retarded by paying these lists any mind.

Oh what a suprise that somebody said this. The context of the thread is that we are looking at how historical revisionism has altered the public's view of history, and they are just examples for general illustrative purposes.

no these are just buzzwords to drive SEO traffic or generated from a small audience with no statistical significance. These lists are fads with the value of scribbles written on toilet paper.

They are indeed of no value. However, they shape the conception of the masses, of 'recorded history', slowly, via the weight of the illusion of consensus. This is how revisionism happens. Journalist shills or fanatics provide an avalanche of certain opinions. Search engines additionally boost certain sources or signals over others; usually curated corporate ones vs. authentic lone-man citizen journalism. The articles I've chosen are for fun, if that wasn't obvious; I enjoyed seeing the Codex's reaction to them - so we can cringe together and take the piss; but the less experienced gamers consult more specialised versions of essentially the same material. Those clickbait sites like "Gamerant" probably generate insane traffic.

 

[Vic]

so why do we care what the masses think? people in every circle will have their own lists, like we have here on the codex.

which reminds me, you searched for best PC games of all time, this is impossible because you are taking all genres into consideration. You can't rank RPG vs Simulation vs Shmup etc.

This discussion is just as pointless as these lists.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

so why do we care what the masses think?

It's a common question. A good one too. The masses don't control anything; tiny interest groups do - so why care about mass opinion, as they are an irrelevance in terms of power over the hobby. Why does it matter what they believe? Why not just enjoy a niche thing, in our private bubble, until we perish taking our secret with us?

I guess truth matters to some people here. If I'm not mistaken, many here for example are legitimately offended that certain systems or games don't get their due. So a sense of justice motivates some. That's a good and natural human impulse. For me, I have an element of wanting to set the record straight too, but I think my main concern is 1). about posterity and games preservation, as well as 2). ensuring people build the next games on solid foundations. I don't like triumphs, or negative lessons born of failure, to be forgotton; I want games, as in all things, to actually improve generation-on-generation. They can only do that with clean information. That requires honesty, and a good analysis of the facts. If nothing else, even if new games fail, the humanitarian in me, would like future folks to know what was good, so that they can experience what I did.

 

[Vic]

I see, okay carry on then soldier