Tendo City

Quote:*removes old post in order to try to save the thread*

Try to learn to understand others, OB1. It'll help you. And when you're in a debate, you don't yell and insult people. You respond to what they said and try to refute their points. You need to learn how to do that. That's all I can say...

I've tried to reason with you, but your enormous ego gets in the way of you ever being able to learn anything new. So you continue to revel in ignorance.

Quote:So if you actually want to discuss the subject, and not just yell at me, how about starting by describing what kind of complexity you are talking about here... I covered a bunch of kinds of complexity, what exactly do you mean?

Remember, just yelling at me again won't help. And if you do that, I'll try my best to just not reply... it's just hard when you make it so personal...

I've already explained myself. I will not waste further time explaining something in detail that you are unable to comprehend because of your ego.

I told you... define your terms! You won't do that, and it makes responding to your 'points' impossible! One cannot say anything about a subject without information, and you sure aren't providing any.

As for me, it's absolutely ludicrous to say that I know nothing. Anyone who has played a quarter the number of platformers that I have would have a pretty darn good idea of how 2d and 3d platformers work, and I've played far more than that. And that's not even talking about designing stuff (sure, I've only done simple programming, but I have done some, and I've made (2d) games with game creators... 3d? Just some racing game tracks. The Warcraft III and Dungeon Siege editors intimidated me, 3d is a lot more complex than 2d...)

I've already explained that creating controls, a good camera system, level design, and overall polish is much harder to do with a fully 3D game. There's also AI, triggers, volumes, and balance, to name a few more things. And no, I will not explain each one to you, because you are not worth my time. If you were someone who didn't have an insanely huge ego and was capable of learning new things, I might reconsider. But that is not the case.

Quote:creating controls,

Well yes, a third dimension makes this harder. Though GGA did have to have some full-3d controls as well -- for the towns, for instance, or for the enemies which go through the environment not just along the 2d path that you travel on. So it's not quite that simple.

Quote: a good camera system,

Both games obviously would have challenges with this, since the GGA one has to rotate around and all... again, you'd have a much stronger case against a straight 2d side-scroller, but this GGA's not that simple... but yes, it could feasibly be harder in MN64. Both would obviously have lots of camera issues to deal with, but in MN64 at least it's probably less likely that there'll be something between the camera and the action that you have to figure out some way to get around (like when in a 3d game the camera is behind a wall)...

Quote:level design,

I've discussed this. I'd say the level design complexity is very similar. Both require 3d level design tools, both have levels that are made in 3d, and at least some elements that use all three dimensions, even in GGA (like the stones that roll across the screen in the first level in GGA)... it might well be simpler to make a level in GGA because it's sidescrolling, but I'd say that they compensated by making the levels more complex, versus MN64's simpler ones... a big part of that, though, is certainly just because MN64 is first-generation and GGA isn't, so in the second game they had optimized the system more and had a better idea of what the N64 could do.

For instance... in MN64, most architecture is square -- square corners, square or rectangular rooms, etc... GGA doesn't have that problem. I guess the sidescrolling nature helps here, it keeps them from having to build the whole room, so it doesn't look as boxy... but just looking at the towns, they certainly look better in the second game, are more complex graphically, are easier to navigate, etc... but if you ignore the graphical elements, I'd say the towns are even -- in both towns work very similarly by most ways you'd compare them, after all. Are the MN64 ones harder to make? I don't think so... it doesn't seem like it's that much harder to do a series of boxy rooms (with doors and people and some stuff like plants or water or something, sure) than it would be to do a couple strip-town segments. :)

Quote: and overall polish is much harder to do with a fully 3D game.

Probably true, but as I've been saying, on the other hand, GGA is more polished (for instance, the noticably better english translation in GGA)... does that make up for it? I'm not sure. But it's there.

Quote:There's also AI, triggers, volumes, and balance, to name a few more things.

AI... it probably is easier in a 2d game. But remember, this is a 2d game with some enemies that move in full 3d (or have some moves which are full 3d), which complicates things... and neither game exactly has the most complex AI routines around. :) But it would be harder to say 'walk back forth in a straight line in this full-3d environment (and charge the player if you see them)' than' walk back and forth along the plane (and charge the player if you see them)'.

triggers, volumes, and balance, I'm not sure what you mean. By balance do you mean game balance? I guess that that'd be harder in a full 3d adventure-type game like MN64... would stuff like the healthbar (how in MN64 it steadily increases, versus GGA's static one), etc fall under that?

Quote:Well yes, a third dimension makes this harder. Though GGA did have to have some full-3d controls as well -- for the towns, for instance, or for the enemies which go through the environment not just along the 2d path that you travel on. So it's not quite that simple.

Actually, it is that simple. Giving a tiny bit more z movement isn't difficult.

Quote:Both games obviously would have challenges with this, since the GGA one has to rotate around and all... again, you'd have a much stronger case against a straight 2d side-scroller, but this GGA's not that simple... but yes, it could feasibly be harder in MN64. Both would obviously have lots of camera issues to deal with, but in MN64 at least it's probably less likely that there'll be something between the camera and the action that you have to figure out some way to get around (like when in a 3d game the camera is behind a wall)...

Again, this shows your complete ignorance towards this subject. It's amazing how much more you continue to insist that you know more about this than I do.

MN64 has a camera that changes dynamically and on-the-fly, while GGA's is always controlled by the game, not the player. HUGE difference there.

Quote:I've discussed this. I'd say the level design complexity is very similar. Both require 3d level design tools, both have levels that are made in 3d, and at least some elements that use all three dimensions, even in GGA (like the stones that roll across the screen in the first level in GGA)... it might well be simpler to make a level in GGA because it's sidescrolling, but I'd say that they compensated by making the levels more complex, versus MN64's simpler ones... a big part of that, though, is certainly just because MN64 is first-generation and GGA isn't, so in the second game they had optimized the system more and had a better idea of what the N64 could do.

For instance... in MN64, most architecture is square -- square corners, square or rectangular rooms, etc... GGA doesn't have that problem. I guess the sidescrolling nature helps here, it keeps them from having to build the whole room, so it doesn't look as boxy... but just looking at the towns, they certainly look better in the second game, are more complex graphically, are easier to navigate, etc... but if you ignore the graphical elements, I'd say the towns are even -- in both towns work very similarly by most ways you'd compare them, after all. Are the MN64 ones harder to make? I don't think so... it doesn't seem like it's that much harder to do a series of boxy rooms (with doors and people and some stuff like plants or water or something, sure) than it would be to do a couple strip-town segments.

Seriously, how much more can you talk out of your ass? Do you go throughout your day to day life like this, spewing forth what you think is actual knowledge about subjects that you know nothing about?

The only thing you see and understand is architecture. You think "hey, polygons are polygons, right? so the levels are the same!11111". But you're very wrong. With sidescrollers you are far less constrained with designing architecture than you are in a fully 3D platformer. It does not matter that you make both types of levels in max. That detail is insignificant. What matters is that you are trying to create a balance of fun and control in either two dimensions or three. You are either dealing with a full x and y axis or x, y, and z. With GGA, they had a) a controlled camera, b) simpler controls, and c) only two full (gameplay) dimensions to have to deal with. With MN they had a) a user-controlled camera that changes constantly, b) more complex controls for use in three dimensional gameplay, and c) three full (gameplay) dimensions to deal with. All three points combine to create a far more complex development process. If you cannot comprehend this then I am not going to deal with you any longer.

Quote:Probably true, but as I've been saying, on the other hand, GGA is more polished (for instance, the noticably better english translation in GGA)... does that make up for it? I'm not sure. But it's there.

No, it does not make up for it. It is FAR more difficult to polish a sidescroller than a 3d platformer. More than you could possibly imagine.

Quote:AI... it probably is easier in a 2d game. But remember, this is a 2d game with some enemies that move in full 3d (or have some moves which are full 3d), which complicates things... and neither game exactly has the most complex AI routines around. But it would be harder to say 'walk back forth in a straight line in this full-3d environment (and charge the player if you see them)' than' walk back and forth along the plane (and charge the player if you see them)'.

There's no "probably" here. I am stating a fact.

Quote:triggers, volumes, and balance, I'm not sure what you mean.

Of course you don't! You don't know a thing about this entire topic! You can only understand it from a critic's point-of-view, which is very limited and does not give you insight into what I have been talking about.

Quote:By balance do you mean game balance? I guess that that'd be harder in a full 3d adventure-type game like MN64... would stuff like the healthbar (how in MN64 it steadily increases, versus GGA's static one), etc fall under that?

Eh, that's a very minor thing.

Quote:Actually, it is that simple. Giving a tiny bit more z movement isn't difficult.

I'm just pointing out that GGA does have full 3d elements, and has to be designed in full 3d.

This made me think, do the enemies in GGA which move in three dimensions truly move in three dimensions or do they have individual 2d paths they follow... I know that they follow scripted routes (they'll always come in in the same way onto the path), but I was just wondering how they did it. :)

Quote:MN64 has a camera that changes dynamically and on-the-fly, while GGA's is always controlled by the game, not the player. HUGE difference there.

That's a good point... in GGA the programmers can tell the camera the exact path it will be on. And if you look at many third-person 3d games it's obvious that 3d cameras are a major challenge... which some companies (say, oh, Sega... :)) still don't seem to have down...

Quote:No, it does not make up for it. It is FAR more difficult to polish a sidescroller than a 3d platformer. More than you could possibly imagine.

Uh... don't you mean it the other way around? :)

It sure seems like your case is that 3d titles are harder to make and polish, I mean.

Quote:The only thing you see and understand is architecture. You think "hey, polygons are polygons, right? so the levels are the same!11111". But you're very wrong. With sidescrollers you are far less constrained with designing architecture than you are in a fully 3D platformer. It does not matter that you make both types of levels in max. That detail is insignificant. What matters is that you are trying to create a balance of fun and control in either two dimensions or three. You are either dealing with a full x and y axis or x, y, and z. With GGA, they had a) a controlled camera, b) simpler controls, and c) only two full (gameplay) dimensions to have to deal with. With MN they had a) a user-controlled camera that changes constantly, b) more complex controls for use in three dimensional gameplay, and c) three full (gameplay) dimensions to deal with. All three points combine to create a far more complex development process. If you cannot comprehend this then I am not going to deal with you any longer.

First, I just have to say that they did have to consider the Z axis in GGA too. :) Especially in the levels with branching paths -- they have to end up in the same place, even if they're curving in completely different paths through space. But yes, it would be a bit harder to do full 3d... and yes, the process is more complex in the full 3d game.

However, this issue really gets away from the point. The point is (or should be) to compare the games in question. There, I see a winner... you disagree of course, but that's what debate is about, disagreement and trying to show why you think what you think is true...

Yes, the major gameplay differences between the two games make comparisons hard. But in almost every category that matters, I would say GGA is the better game. The fact that in some ways MN64 was harder to program really doesn't matter much on the question of "which is the better game"... unless you're saying that the fact that it was harder to make makes MN64 make up for all the ways that it's not as good as GGA (since in the "easier" game they had more time to spend on making the total package better)?

Some of the differences between the games are things that seem to be common to the differences between 2d and 3d platformers. Take enemies. In 2d games, you usually fight lots of enemies who are a real threat. In 3d games, enemies are less of a problem... you have a third dimension to avoid them in so their movements, shots, etc aren't as challenging to dodge. This is quite noticable in Mario 64 too, of course... the pacing change (much faster side-scrolling styles vs. slower paced 3d platforming) is also quite noticable. It's unavoidable, really, if you do full 3d... there are just some kinds of gameplay that don't translate well to full 3d, and classic platforming is probably the primary one of those things. Not that 3d platformers are bad -- no, I just mean that they are different. A different genre, really...

But in this case, some of my complaints about MN64 are things that 3d platformers can do better than that game showed. Like the bland level designs the game's got a lot of the time (Yes, I understand that it's harder to design a full 3d level... but it can be done well -- just look at Mario 64 or Mario Sunshine! There's no way that GGA compares to those games in level design or quality...), and the easy difficulty (I can't figure out why you think GGA is easier than MN64, I don't see it...) and short length, and the unskippable animations (like that stupid dragon that transports you around... so long... :)), the simpler giant robot fights (though they're still great fun!), etc.

Eh, I like 3d platformers. As I said, MN64 is a fun game. It's got good points (in comparison to GGA, I mean -- both games have great humor, of course) -- the minigames, the sense of 'this world is reasonably large', etc... But it doesn't grab me like GGA... it doesn't have that same value of pure fun to it. It's more complex, yes, but is Goemon a game that needs (or benefits from) that added complexity (is it better to have a slower paced title like MN64 than a fast one like GGA? Is the added depth of that third dimension something that really helps the game? (and no, there isn't just one answer to those questions -- even from me -- I see some advantages to full 3d. I really like the contiguous world, for instance, as opposed to going to a world map in between levels...)? I'd rather see a very well made and well put together side-scrolling Goemon game than a slightly less polished (because it's harder to make -- same development time, etc) full 3d platformer in the series. Unless they managed to do a really great 3d platformer... but after MN64, and after how the PS2 Goemon was supposedly not so great, I'm not convinced that Konami can do that well.

Really, the biggest problems with MN64 are probably the easy enemies (as I said, a common problem to 3d platformers, and one I don't know how you'd really avoid...), the not-great level designs (not awful either, but not as good as it could be.) -- or perhaps more accurately, the repetitive and/or bland level designs (like that stupid mountain... up up up and it all looked the same...), and the slower pace (framerate! It's not very good! Speed up the framerate, add more challenging platforming, make the areas more interesting, and a full-3d Goemon could be great...). It's a very good game as it is, but it definitely rates lower than GGA overall.

Of course, Goemon New Age Whatever for GBA was a sidescroller and was pretty awful too, so sometimes those have issues as well... oh well, all we can do is hope that the DS game is good. And actually comes out here.

Quote:And MN takes much longer to get into than GGA. GGA is a much simpler type of game, but in the end MN is more rewarding.

So is your arguement that since MN64 is the more complex, deeper title (gameplay-wise), that makes it the better game? As I said above, I'd counter that by saying that, while there is something to be said for the contiguous world, more continuity, etc, what's most important is fun, and I enjoyed the simpler game more. GGA is just a fantastic game, pure and simple... and as such it's definitely my favorite sidescroller on the N64. Favorite platformer? No, that's Mario 64... but it's somewhere up there, for sure. It's got that classic feel and fun to it that makes you want to keep playing it even if you've beaten it three times.... at least, that's what I'd say. :)

Quote:I'm just pointing out that GGA does have full 3d elements, and has to be designed in full 3d.

This made me think, do the enemies in GGA which move in three dimensions truly move in three dimensions or do they have individual 2d paths they follow... I know that they follow scripted routes (they'll always come in in the same way onto the path), but I was just wondering how they did it.

No, the game is not designed in "full 3D". I already explained that. Only the graphics engine is fully 3D. That's not the tough part.

Quote:Uh... don't you mean it the other way around?

It sure seems like your case is that 3d titles are harder to make and polish, I mean.

Yes I meant the other way around.

Quote:First, I just have to say that they did have to consider the Z axis in GGA too. Especially in the levels with branching paths -- they have to end up in the same place, even if they're curving in completely different paths through space. But yes, it would be a bit harder to do full 3d... and yes, the process is more complex in the full 3d game.

I said full three dimensions. Branching paths and slight z axis movement is NOT full 3D. Not in regards to this subject.

Quote:However, this issue really gets away from the point. The point is (or should be) to compare the games in question. There, I see a winner... you disagree of course, but that's what debate is about, disagreement and trying to show why you think what you think is true...

Yes, the major gameplay differences between the two games make comparisons hard. But in almost every category that matters, I would say GGA is the better game. The fact that in some ways MN64 was harder to program really doesn't matter much on the question of "which is the better game"... unless you're saying that the fact that it was harder to make makes MN64 make up for all the ways that it's not as good as GGA (since in the "easier" game they had more time to spend on making the total package better)?

Some of the differences between the games are things that seem to be common to the differences between 2d and 3d platformers. Take enemies. In 2d games, you usually fight lots of enemies who are a real threat. In 3d games, enemies are less of a problem... you have a third dimension to avoid them in so their movements, shots, etc aren't as challenging to dodge. This is quite noticable in Mario 64 too, of course... the pacing change (much faster side-scrolling styles vs. slower paced 3d platforming) is also quite noticable. It's unavoidable, really, if you do full 3d... there are just some kinds of gameplay that don't translate well to full 3d, and classic platforming is probably the primary one of those things. Not that 3d platformers are bad -- no, I just mean that they are different. A different genre, really...

But in this case, some of my complaints about MN64 are things that 3d platformers can do better than that game showed. Like the bland level designs the game's got a lot of the time (Yes, I understand that it's harder to design a full 3d level... but it can be done well -- just look at Mario 64 or Mario Sunshine! There's no way that GGA compares to those games in level design or quality...), and the easy difficulty (I can't figure out why you think GGA is easier than MN64, I don't see it...) and short length, and the unskippable animations (like that stupid dragon that transports you around... so long... ), the simpler giant robot fights (though they're still great fun!), etc.

Eh, I like 3d platformers. As I said, MN64 is a fun game. It's got good points (in comparison to GGA, I mean -- both games have great humor, of course) -- the minigames, the sense of 'this world is reasonably large', etc... But it doesn't grab me like GGA... it doesn't have that same value of pure fun to it. It's more complex, yes, but is Goemon a game that needs (or benefits from) that added complexity (is it better to have a slower paced title like MN64 than a fast one like GGA? Is the added depth of that third dimension something that really helps the game? (and no, there isn't just one answer to those questions -- even from me -- I see some advantages to full 3d. I really like the contiguous world, for instance, as opposed to going to a world map in between levels...)? I'd rather see a very well made and well put together side-scrolling Goemon game than a slightly less polished (because it's harder to make -- same development time, etc) full 3d platformer in the series. Unless they managed to do a really great 3d platformer... but after MN64, and after how the PS2 Goemon was supposedly not so great, I'm not convinced that Konami can do that well.

Really, the biggest problems with MN64 are probably the easy enemies (as I said, a common problem to 3d platformers, and one I don't know how you'd really avoid...), the not-great level designs (not awful either, but not as good as it could be.) -- or perhaps more accurately, the repetitive and/or bland level designs (like that stupid mountain... up up up and it all looked the same...), and the slower pace (framerate! It's not very good! Speed up the framerate, add more challenging platforming, make the areas more interesting, and a full-3d Goemon could be great...). It's a very good game as it is, but it definitely rates lower than GGA overall.

Of course, Goemon New Age Whatever for GBA was a sidescroller and was pretty awful too, so sometimes those have issues as well... oh well, all we can do is hope that the DS game is good. And actually comes out here.

I have been arguing (and so have you), the difficulty in creating GGA versus MN. I'm glad you've finally admitted (in your ABF way) that you are wrong.

As for which is a better game, you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote:So is your arguement that since MN64 is the more complex, deeper title (gameplay-wise), that makes it the better game? As I said above, I'd counter that by saying that, while there is something to be said for the contiguous world, more continuity, etc, what's most important is fun, and I enjoyed the simpler game more. GGA is just a fantastic game, pure and simple... and as such it's definitely my favorite sidescroller on the N64. Favorite platformer? No, that's Mario 64... but it's somewhere up there, for sure. It's got that classic feel and fun to it that makes you want to keep playing it even if you've beaten it three times.... at least, that's what I'd say.

So OoT is a worse game than Mario 64 because Mario 64 is more "fun"? I don't judge games like you do, obviously.

Quote:So OoT is a worse game than Mario 64 because Mario 64 is more "fun"? I don't judge games like you do, obviously.

Huh? No, I think OoT is more fun than Mario 64... :)

Of course fun isn't the only factor. But it's definitely a very important one...

Quote:No, the game is not designed in "full 3D". I already explained that. Only the graphics engine is fully 3D. That's not the tough part.

It's obvious that they were thinking at least some in three dimensions based on their level design, though...

Quote:I said full three dimensions. Branching paths and slight z axis movement is NOT full 3D. Not in regards to this subject.

True, but it's more use of three dimensions than most sidescrollers use...

Quote:I have been arguing (and so have you), the difficulty in creating GGA versus MN. I'm glad you've finally admitted (in your ABF way) that you are wrong.

As for which is a better game, you're entitled to your opinion.

Actually, it started out as about which is the better game, but then you decided you'd rather talk about this, not that... I was trying to get things back on track. But if you don't want to, fine...

Quote:Huh? No, I think OoT is more fun than Mario 64...

Of course fun isn't the only factor. But it's definitely a very important one...

GGA is a hotdog. A really great hotdog. MN is a full-course meal. An 8/10 for full course meals, while GGA is a 10/10 for hotdogs. But I'll take my 8/10 full course meal any day of the week.

Quote:It's obvious that they were thinking at least some in three dimensions based on their level design, though...

Quote:True, but it's more use of three dimensions than most sidescrollers use...

*sigh*

You really have no idea what I've been talking about this entire time.

Quote:Actually, it started out as about which is the better game, but then you decided you'd rather talk about this, not that... I was trying to get things back on track. But if you don't want to, fine...

I said that your tastes in games is questionable, then I said that MN has more "meat" to it, which you denied.

Quote:*sigh*

You really have no idea what I've been talking about this entire time.

How, exactly, does saying 'that's true but it's closer than you admit" translate to "you have no idea about what I am saying"?

Oh right, it doesn't.

Quote:GGA is a hotdog. A really great hotdog. MN is a full-course meal. An 8/10 for full course meals, while GGA is a 10/10 for hotdogs. But I'll take my 8/10 full course meal any day of the week.

The levels of complexity GGA doesn't have that MN64 does have are not really necessary for a good platformer. And the things it adds are. So I'd definitely dispute that. GGA is a meal that, while simpler in some ways, is better tasting overall. :)

Quote:How, exactly, does saying 'that's true but it's closer than you admit" translate to "you have no idea about what I am saying"?

Oh right, it doesn't.

I've explained this more than adequately for you! If you fail to understand a thing I say then it is not my fault, it is yours!

Quote:The levels of complexity GGA doesn't have that MN64 does have are not really necessary for a good platformer. And the things it adds are. So I'd definitely dispute that. GGA is a meal that, while simpler in some ways, is better tasting overall.

You don't even like lobster. Shows how good your taste is! In all respects.

Quote:I've explained this more than adequately for you! If you fail to understand a thing I say then it is not my fault, it is yours!

Um... that's not what I was saying... I understand your point. You don't understand that I do, of course, but I do...

Quote:How, exactly, does saying 'that's true but it's closer than you admit" translate to "you have no idea about what I am saying"?

Oh right, it doesn't.

has nothing to do with what you seem to interpret me to mean. Of course, that's exactly what I expected (you to not comprehend), because this is OB1 we're talking about, but it's still frusterating every time that it happens...

Quote:You don't even like lobster. Shows how good your taste is! In all respects.

Because, as we all know, the tastes of OB1 are good... nay, GREAT! And the tastes of all others are not just inferior but are criminally wrong to the point that all others should bow down to him and accept his correctness about all things?

Quote:Um... that's not what I was saying... I understand your point. You don't understand that I do, of course, but I do...

Your responses to my posts show that you have absolutely no idea what I have been talking about this entire time.

Quote:has nothing to do with what you seem to interpret me to mean. Of course, that's exactly what I expected (you to not comprehend), because this is OB1 we're talking about, but it's still frusterating every time that it happens...

That doesn't make any damn sense. Go back and read the past several posts.

Quote:Because, as we all know, the tastes of OB1 are good... nay, GREAT! And the tastes of all others are not just inferior but are criminally wrong to the point that all others should bow down to him and accept his correctness about all things?

I'm glad you finally got it!

Quote:That doesn't make any damn sense. Go back and read the past several posts.

Yeah, as usual you make a point, I recognize the valid parts of your point and say 'in addition to that this is a valid point too', and you insult me for not saying that you are 100%, exactly right in every possible way (including, most certainly, ways that your opponent in the debate didn't say!).

It's as stupid as it sounds.

Saying "you're right, as far as you go, but there's more to it than that" shouldn't be considered a threat that you must destroy, OB1, it should be considered a valid point that you should consider... maybe someday you'll be able to do that, but until then, anyone who voices the tiniest bit of objection to what you say (even if like here IT (the response to what you said) DOES NOT SAY THAT ANY OF THE POINTS YOU HAVE ACTUALLY MADE (the 'these are why it's more complex to make a 3d adventure game' points, I mean, in this case) ARE INVALID) gets dragged over the coals...

Really, if I have such a little understanding of what your point is, why have I demonstrated that I understand it, and why have I shown quite clearly that I understand at least 80% of your points quite well, and why is it that what I am saying is an arguement made based on the fact that I DO understand it? Right, because I DO understand it.

I explained WHY I am right, but of course you cannot comprehend anything that I say. I will continue with this.

Why can't you figure out that what I'm saying isn't in conflict with your points?

You can't even understand what I'm saying! Here, you need this:

Only if you use it first... :)

Ooooh, great comeback!

I know!

Thanks for ruining this thread btw!

Yeah, like it's my fault alone.

And it's absolutely amazing how you manage to pretend that you can accept other people's opinions while being one of the most closeminded people I've ever seen when those opinions are actually presented to you... what we disagree on here is 100% a matter of OPINION! Opinion! And I understand yours quite well, thank you. I just disagree. Why can't you accept that? But no, it's not THAT, it's "You're a stupid idiot who has no idea what I am saying"... it's like you think that naturally anyone who understood you would HAVE to agree with you so the only way someone could be disagreeing with allknowing OB1 is if they are stupid...

And that's completely ridiculous.

I mean, shouldn't that have been resolved even in YOUR mind when the 'which was harder to make' thing ended?

It's a matter of opinion regarding which game is better. It is not, however, a matter of opinion regarding which game is more complex.

...

That is awesome! Hahaha!


Man that image is going to be very useful...