Systems you don't like.

[korn16ftl3]

semi off topic its more or less a pariphil i absolutely despise mostly because of the location the attachment its that god forsaken PS3 Chat Pad, i swear they mounted that fucking thing at the top of the PS3 Pad just because MS put there 360 chat pad on the bottom....i mean REALLY WTF it makes sense down there its easily reached by your thumbs and every thing BUT OH NO Sony cant do any thing logical this generation

[Breetai]

I hate PC gaming.

Wha, wha, why?

DRM? Hardware issues on older systems? Don't like being stuck to a monitor (not as much of an issue these days, but it used to be)? PC gaming can be awesome sometimes*!



*especially if you are playing PC Engine games.

For me, DRM, forced installs, varying compatabilities, keyboard controls (I hate them), being stuck to a monitor and not being able to have my computer available for talking to friends, lstening to music and whatever else whilst I'm playing a game without having to switch out of the game window. Yes, most or all of these things can be avoided, but it's just more effort. I put in the effort to play some classic point n click games, but for everything else, I just stick with my consoles.

And yes, I know some of these things are increasingly becoming a problem on modern home consoles too, but seeing as my only modern systems are the Wii and 3DS, I don't really let that bother me right now.

Yeah, I can see DRM being an annoyance for more modern games. I guess, in my head, it's pretty much retro or bust. That negates DRM and worries about incompatibilities. KB controls can be overcome by simply plugging in a 360, PS3 or any USB pad in, although it is more work than a console. If you have a newer TV, it is usually simple to plug a computer in. Then again, you might not have that available.

In other words, I do see your points and pretty much share your feelings (although to a lesser extent).

[AdamGomez1987]

I keep hearing about PC games, I can never reject great games such as Baldur's Gate I and II, Diablo's I and II and when I do play PC games, I cannot reject Starcraft II because I love the high templar, makes me feel like a wizard..lol

[BurningDoom]

*yawn* at this shit thread.

Thank you for your most insightful contribution to this thread. How do you do it?

[dsheinem]

*yawn* at this shit thread.

Thank you for your most insightful contribution to this thread. How do you do it?

I begin by analyzing the various arguments set forth by the people involved. I consider the substance of their claims, the quality of their support, their ability to engage the audience and/or previous posters, and their general style of presentation. I also consider their ethos, or credibility and character/goodwill, based on their previous posting history. I consider the question of "what is at stake?" for them as they contend various points, and determine the usefulness of their contribution(s) to the thread and to the forum as a whole.

Following that, I think about the evolution of the thread through the various posts, keeping tabs on what seem to be the major points of discussion, what points are ignored entirely, and what deviations occur. Given that I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of discussion on the forum, I also think about the historical context of the thread and the posts made therein. I consider the novelty of the thread, the role it serves in stirring productive and stimulating discussion in the forum, and the potential for it to create new ideas.

Once I have considered these points, I spend time thinking about if and how I might want to join in the conversation. I ask questions such as "what can I say to stimulate further discussion?" and "what kinds of claims would make this thread more interesting?" I also think about the appropriate kinds of responses I can make to the various claims.: do I want to address just the op, do I want to quote and reply to certain posts, do I want to lobby for a new position or line of discussion, or do I want to try and assess the value of the thread as a whole?

Finally, after all this consideration and analysis, I think about what I want to post and how I want to post it. In this case, I determined that the thread was one that was not very productive, didn't raise many interesting or novel points, did little to advance the overall discourse of the forum, and was analogous to a waste-product of the forum. I also found it to be fairly dull in comparison to some of the other, more captivating and stimulating threads on the forum. I determined that a short yet descriptive reply was probably best provided that it could express the complexity of the view I'd come to after considerable analysis, potentially engender further discussion, and succinctly make my point.

That's how I do it.

[Breetai]

*yawn* at this shit thread.

Thank you for your most insightful contribution to this thread. How do you do it?

I begin by analyzing the various arguments set forth by the people involved. I consider the substance of their claims, the quality of their support, their ability to engage the audience and/or previous posters, and their general style of presentation. I also consider their ethos, or credibility and character/goodwill, based on their previous posting history. I consider the question of "what is at stake?" for them as they contend various points, and determine the usefulness of their contribution(s) to the thread and to the forum as a whole.

Following that, I think about the evolution of the thread through the various posts, keeping tabs on what seem to be the major points of discussion, what points are ignored entirely, and what deviations occur. Given that I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of discussion on the forum, I also think about the historical context of the thread and the posts made therein. I consider the novelty of the thread, the role it serves in stirring productive and stimulating discussion in the forum, and the potential for it to create new ideas.

Once I have considered these points, I spend time thinking about if and how I might want to join in the conversation. I ask questions such as "what can I say to stimulate further discussion?" and "what kinds of claims would make this thread more interesting?" I also think about the appropriate kinds of responses I can make to the various claims.: do I want to address just the op, do I want to quote and reply to certain posts, do I want to lobby for a new position or line of discussion, or do I want to try and assess the value of the thread as a whole?

Finally, after all this consideration and analysis, I think about what I want to post and how I want to post it. In this case, I determined that the thread was one that was not very productive, didn't raise many interesting or novel points, did little to advance the overall discourse of the forum, and was analogous to a waste-product of the forum. I also found it to be fairly dull in comparison to some of the other, more captivating and stimulating threads on the forum. I determined that a short yet descriptive reply was probably best provided that it could express the complexity of the view I'd come to after considerable analysis, potentially engender further discussion, and succinctly make my point.

That's how I do it.

Well I'll be damned. I took the exact opposite approach. I had fun with mine, despite the fact that this exact same thread has been done over, and over, and over, and over. Looks like you had fun giving your insight here as well, and I enjoyed reading it! For that, I thank you.

[Hobie-wan]

[being stuck to a monitor and not being able to have my computer available for talking to friends, lstening to music and whatever else whilst I'm playing a game without having to switch out of the game window.

How is using some other device to play music and text your friends while you play a PC game technically different from using your computer to do so while playing a console on your TV? You're still switching back and forth between devices.

I guess I'm weird that when I'm playing a game I generally don't want to be pausing every 2 minutes to send messages to people. I usually set myself to away in IMs until I'm taking a break or done.

[AdamGomez1987]

Still thinking hard on this subject, I don't want to say the Nintendo 64 as much... I'm really tempted to say the Super Nintendo because I remember when "Marvel Super Heroes" for the arcade came out and it was hot shit. And what those dirty pigs did was give it art work that made you think it was going to be like the arcade game and instead we get a watered down version of the X-Men: Mutant Apocalypse. That alone made me cry and hate the Super Nintendo despite the other merits it has brought, basically the SNES is my #1 heart breaker.

[BurningDoom]

*yawn* at this shit thread.

Thank you for your most insightful contribution to this thread. How do you do it?

I begin by analyzing the various arguments set forth by the people involved. I consider the substance of their claims, the quality of their support, their ability to engage the audience and/or previous posters, and their general style of presentation. I also consider their ethos, or credibility and character/goodwill, based on their previous posting history. I consider the question of "what is at stake?" for them as they contend various points, and determine the usefulness of their contribution(s) to the thread and to the forum as a whole.

Following that, I think about the evolution of the thread through the various posts, keeping tabs on what seem to be the major points of discussion, what points are ignored entirely, and what deviations occur. Given that I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of discussion on the forum, I also think about the historical context of the thread and the posts made therein. I consider the novelty of the thread, the role it serves in stirring productive and stimulating discussion in the forum, and the potential for it to create new ideas.

Once I have considered these points, I spend time thinking about if and how I might want to join in the conversation. I ask questions such as "what can I say to stimulate further discussion?" and "what kinds of claims would make this thread more interesting?" I also think about the appropriate kinds of responses I can make to the various claims.: do I want to address just the op, do I want to quote and reply to certain posts, do I want to lobby for a new position or line of discussion, or do I want to try and assess the value of the thread as a whole?

Finally, after all this consideration and analysis, I think about what I want to post and how I want to post it. In this case, I determined that the thread was one that was not very productive, didn't raise many interesting or novel points, did little to advance the overall discourse of the forum, and was analogous to a waste-product of the forum. I also found it to be fairly dull in comparison to some of the other, more captivating and stimulating threads on the forum. I determined that a short yet descriptive reply was probably best provided that it could express the complexity of the view I'd come to after considerable analysis, potentially engender further discussion, and succinctly make my point.

That's how I do it.

So if you have nothing to add then don't say anything at all...or you could just continue being a troll.

[dsheinem]

So if you have nothing to add then don't say anything at all...or you could just continue being a troll.

But I did have something to add: a succinct critique that would engender responses. The ensuing discussion about my original post that you yourself are participating in validates my choice to make it, and for that you have my thanks.