racketboy.com

Ack wrote:Oh, and this is not gaming related, but I hate when people call Fox News "Feaux News." Especially if they then think that MSNBC and CNN provide balanced and accurate news services without biased commentary.

I like you Ack, +1

AppleQueso wrote:

Ack wrote:Sure, but Mario wouldn't fit into The Legend of Zelda quite as well.

Oh, and this is not gaming related, but I hate when people call Fox News "Feaux News." Especially if they then think that MSNBC and CNN provide balanced and accurate news services without biased commentary.

True on the Zelda front.

MSNBC to me always has seemed pretty upfront about their viewpoint and doesn't pretend to be unbiased.

I have seen the claim made by commenters who work there though, such as Chris Jansing claiming that she and her program was balanced on MSNBC. And I have also had to explain to people that MSNBC was the left equivalent of Fox(if not further, as claimed by Pew Research during the election regarding each major televised news station's treatment toward President Obama and Mitt Romney).

But regardless of our political pedigree, I find the way all major news networks discuss video games is insulting. And the truth is, Sessler did have a point in that many games, primarily the ones that get demonized for resulting in violence, are not meant for children. No, his wording didn't exactly express that, but I agree with that sentiment. Games like Doom, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc., aren't always meant for kids, even if they are sometimes marketed to them.

oh another one I just thought of:

-I love the Saturn/Sega CD/early Ps1 longbox jewel cases.

In case you missed it:

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

That's why people call them Feaux News. If they've officially gone on record admitting that they're liars, they lose the right to call themselves a legitimate news organization. Oh and FYI, I usually get my news from the Associated Press. They seem to be the least biased from what I've seen, or at least they try to be.

Retrodude wrote:In case you missed it:

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

That's why people call them Feaux News. If they've officially gone on record admitting that they're liars, they lose the right to call themselves a legitimate news organization. Oh and FYI, I usually get my news from the Associated Press. They seem to be the least biased from what I've seen, or at least they try to be.

That's from 2009. That monikor has been around since I was in college though, as I remember seeing it on shirts back in 2005. And they are as much a legitimate news operation as the others, all of which are heavily biased. Even CNN is heavily biased, despite having the fewest talking head programs. But if you have that much of an issue with a marketing slogan, do you get highly offended by Pepsi claiming they were the choice of a generation? I sure didn't drink them.

Ack wrote:That's from 2009. That monikor has been around since I was in college though, as I remember seeing it on shirts back in 2005. And they are as much a legitimate news operation as the others, all of which are heavily biased. Even CNN is heavily biased, despite having the fewest talking head programs. But if you have that much of an issue with a marketing slogan, do you get highly offended by Pepsi claiming they were the choice of a generation? I sure didn't drink them.

CNN is utter shit, but Fox News is the only news organization that sued the FCC in order to deliberately lie. Not mislead, but outright lie. Not make suggestions or form opinions against truth, not leave out facts, but deliberately provide knowingly false information. Any "news" organization that does this long ago lost any right to be called so. Fox has zero credibility. When other news organizations started suing to be able to lie, I'll put them in the same category.

Here's a few of mine:
-If you didn't play a system during the time it was a retail system, you shouldn't collect games for it. Emulate if you're curious, but leave the originals for those with real nostaliga (yes, there are exceptions).
-The Dreamcast is overrated and has a crap controller.
-Retro consoles older than the NES aren't worth your time.
-The 3DO was an awesome system.
-The Nintendo 64 is a crap system.
-The PS3 is the best system of this generation.
-The Adventure of Link is the best Zelda game.
-The Walking Dead was overrated and barely a game.
-I play PC FPS games with a controller and can't stand using KBM controls.

Phades wrote:-If you didn't play a system during the time it was a retail system, you shouldn't collect games for it. Emulate if you're curious, but leave the originals for those with real nostaliga (yes, there are exceptions).

...but retro gaming isn't just about reliving your past.

AppleQueso wrote:

Phades wrote:-If you didn't play a system during the time it was a retail system, you shouldn't collect games for it. Emulate if you're curious, but leave the originals for those with real nostaliga (yes, there are exceptions).

...but retro gaming isn't just about reliving your past.

Agreed. Which is why I would encourage them to play emulators.

Phades wrote:

AppleQueso wrote:

Phades wrote:-If you didn't play a system during the time it was a retail system, you shouldn't collect games for it. Emulate if you're curious, but leave the originals for those with real nostaliga (yes, there are exceptions).

...but retro gaming isn't just about reliving your past.

Agreed. Which is why I would encourage them to play emulators.

I don't need to have owned a Turbografx-16 in its heyday for example to appreciate owning one now.

I really don't get the reasoning. Since when is nostalgia a factor in what you should or shouldn't buy?