taig

Nintendo abandoned the older fanbase a long time ago, and that older fanbase is still bitter.

So there are these old nostalgic Nintendo fans who would love a Mario or Zelda that spoke to them, but see that they are just not the demographic anymore and are upset.

Also Nintendo makes products for people with tiny little baby hands. That is the only reason I could be said to hate them. Way to torture giants Nintendo. It hurts so bad.

The idea of not buying his game because it is "cheap" but instead because someone really wants it seems to forget that when making any kind of entertainment you are trying to win an audience over. Aren't you? If the audience is already 100% on your side that is great why drop the price ever? If you are Disney why ever drop the price of a movie. If you aren't its a lofty goal to aim for.

This is not in any way a pro consumer argument. The only pro consumer claim he made was that if you spend more you will value it more. By that logic lighting all my money on fire would be the most fun I could ever have.

I do not understand the idea that changing the perceived value of a product, putting it on sale, negatively impacts early adopters. This feels like a rationalization to keep that value inflated, even at the potential cost of sales. The idea that he is doing anyone a favor by keeping his game out of potential customers hands is silly, unless of course he is (because it is bad)

As I've grown older the biggest thing that has changed in how I appreciated music is that I always think about what the music provokes in an audience. This is clearly part of a rationalization that if you deconstruct entertainment it is research and not wasting time, but it works for me.

My father is a Broadway actor so I loved show tunes as a child, and then I grew too cool for them as a teenager, nothing but obscure electronic music for me thanks (boy was I cool), and I have come back around to loving musicals with a passion.

Using the word "retarded" immediately makes me want to disregard your point, but I'm not clear on what your point is. When you diminish instead of refute the "Anita Sarkesians of the world" you sound like someone on the wrong side of this issue.

It is fine to disagree with a feminist about feminism. No one person owns the moral high ground, but when you attack with a broad stroke specifically women who champion this issue (even in a manner you disagree with)...in an argument about feminism. You look like the bad guy. Even if you aren't. This is not a problem with your argument exactly, it just makes me doubt you.

What? Everyone having the same common ground seems incredibly boring. Be nice to people sure, but don't expect them to share your perspective. That is impossible. Instead are you suggesting a compromise solution? The idea that compromise is always the solution seems silly, because what if I believe it isn't. You say it is. I say it isn't. You say it is... see my point. Sometimes people are just right, and other people are just wrong. Maybe you are a moral relativist and don't believe in that nonsense about rightness. A moral relativist who believes in a monoculture that should swallow up individuality to the point where we no longer disagree about anything is someone I can respect. That is a bold stance sir. It solves all moral problems, but It sounds scary. Also it reminds me of Gattaca. Im gonna go watch Gattaca.

Rome Total War 2 by a mile for me. I was really hopeful when they talked about all the new systems in that game, but everything in that game is so shallow and empty and that doesn't even begin to address the technical failings.

Shogun 2 looked like they were learning lessons that Rome 2 just forgot entirely. God that was a bummer. I also really wanted The Cave to not be as bad as it is.

Sorry, you are just incorrect on your definition of character. You are pretending characters that are designed to be simply a conduit for player agency in the world are not characters, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not Crono. For all I know you rock that same bitching haircut, but still you are not that character. That character exists, maybe only as your avatar, but it still exists.

If you change the definition of words to suit your argument all you do is create a problem of language, and hit a brick wall in a conversation. Please don't do that.

By generated this is referring to player choice? As in left trigger vs right trigger or who you killed in dark souls?