Main > Consoles

PS3 pulling a Saturn?

Pages: << < (18/22) > >>

elvis:


--- Quote from: shmokes on September 14, 2006, 03:38:21 am ---An objective analysis can come to an incorrect conclusion (though mine didn't). 
--- End quote ---
Goodness, this smacks of arrogance.


--- Quote from: shmokes on September 14, 2006, 03:38:21 am ---And the analogy is perfectly relevant to the argument.  I can objectively conclude that Miles Davis is an excellent musuician on the exact same grounds that I can objectively conclude that GTA is an excellent game.
--- End quote ---
Once again, you are comparing a person that produces something to an end product.  You may as well compare Michaelangelo to the Mona Lisa (ie: one is a person, one is an object created by a person).  Apples and oranges.  Honestly, you're either having serious troubles grokking the argument (dare I use the phrase "Joe Sixpack" once again?), or trolling...


--- Quote from: shmokes on September 14, 2006, 03:38:21 am ---Games are better today than they've ever been
--- End quote ---
...and now I know you're trolling.  There's no point me continuing this conversation any further after you've made that statement, as it's all quite clear now.


shmokes:

Semantics . . . whatever.  You know that I'm comparing the music of Miles Davis with GTA.  When I say I don't find him entertaining, I don't mean that he personally comes to my house and dances a jig for me.  I'm talking about his music and you know it. 

I wrote a big long bit about games today vs. games back in the day, but you're right.  It's a digression.  It has little to do with what we were arguing about and I'm sure people are tired of reading pages and pages from me.

SNAAKE:


--- Quote from: shmokes on September 13, 2006, 11:34:26 pm --- go ---fudgesicle--- yourself.

--- End quote ---

 :laugh2: :laugh2:



markrvp:

If Shmokes spent as much time studying French as he does arguing subjective gaming tastes on the internet, he probably wouldn't need to beg for money to go to France.

shmokes:

Too late for that . . . eh?

Pages: << < (18/22) > >>

Go to full version