Page 7 of 11
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:42 pm
by o.pwuaioc
Gamerforlife wrote:o.pwuaioc wrote:Fact: Saying that not all licensed games suck is purely an opinion.
Not if you can provides tons of evidence of high scoring reviews for a variety of licensed games. An opinion becomes fact when you have evidence to back it up
Another myth. The only "fact" is that
those reviewers think those games don't suck. A crucial distinction. Whether something "sucks" or not is always a matter of personal, subjective taste, thus opinion.
Flake wrote:I heard a myth once about the color of the original PSX. As I remember, the myth was supposed to be that Sony obtained a license to use Nintendo's patented version of gray in their brief co-venture to make the CD-add on for the SNES. Supposedly Sony used that color just to piss off Nintendo after their partnership fell through.
I wonder if it got conflated with the CD-add on that CD-i was supposed to make for Nintendo (thus their use of Zelda).
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:16 pm
by Breetai
BoringSupreez wrote:jalvarez82 wrote:Question.
Was it the Dreamcast that really introduced online gaming? I think there was a system before it that tried it out. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No, it didn't. The PC did, and the first console to feature it was the SNES. There is a rare modem you can buy for it, which a very few games are compatible with for multiplayer.
You mean the X-Band? It was also on the Genesis. I don't know which was first. Maybe they were both released at the same time? At any rate, the DC was not even close to being the first console to have online play. The Genesis, SNES and Saturn all had it before. Not sure about other consoles.
The Genesis also had the ability to download games from online to play them, similarly to the Virtual Console (or XBL or PSN), except the games were only able to be played for a month I believe. This was under the "Sega Channel" name, where a monthly fee was charged. This is the only form in which Golden Axe III and Mega Man: The Wily Wars was released in North America. The Super Famicom in Japan also has a similar service. Apparently the 2600 did as well, according to the ad that Noiseredux posted.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:17 am
by MrPopo
o.pwuaioc wrote:Gamerforlife wrote:o.pwuaioc wrote:Fact: Saying that not all licensed games suck is purely an opinion.
Not if you can provides tons of evidence of high scoring reviews for a variety of licensed games. An opinion becomes fact when you have evidence to back it up
Another myth. The only "fact" is that
those reviewers think those games don't suck. A crucial distinction. Whether something "sucks" or not is always a matter of personal, subjective taste, thus opinion.
The myth is that something cannot objectively suck.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:54 am
by BoringSupreez
MrPopo wrote:The myth is that something cannot objectively suck.
Here's some proof of that.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:29 am
by o.pwuaioc
If one person really likes it, it does not objectively suck, but it doesn't subjectively suck for them.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:04 am
by Erik_Twice
o.pwuaioc wrote:If one person really likes it, it does not objectively suck, but it doesn't subjectively suck for them.
Quality, by definition, is intrinsic hence it cannot be subjective even if our means to determine such quality are inprecise.
Someone liking a certain work of art doesn't mean it's of a bigger quality, just that the work in question fits the person tastes and isn't bothered by it's downsides. And there's nothing wrong with that! But how much someone likes depends on the person, it's extrinsic, it depends on the person.
Some works are great but have little audience while others are pretty bad but loved by many.
Reviews shouldn't be aggregated, as they are argumentative, just being a more popular argument doesn't make it better. Rather, a review invalidates other so adding the scores is not reasonable.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:08 am
by alienjesus
Breetai wrote:BoringSupreez wrote:jalvarez82 wrote:Question.
Was it the Dreamcast that really introduced online gaming? I think there was a system before it that tried it out. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No, it didn't. The PC did, and the first console to feature it was the SNES. There is a rare modem you can buy for it, which a very few games are compatible with for multiplayer.
You mean the X-Band? It was also on the Genesis. I don't know which was first. Maybe they were both released at the same time? At any rate, the DC was not even close to being the first console to have online play. The Genesis, SNES and Saturn all had it before. Not sure about other consoles.
The Genesis also had the ability to download games from online to play them, similarly to the Virtual Console (or XBL or PSN), except the games were only able to be played for a month I believe. This was under the "Sega Channel" name, where a monthly fee was charged. This is the only form in which Golden Axe III and Mega Man: The Wily Wars was released in North America. The Super Famicom in Japan also has a similar service. Apparently the 2600 did as well, according to the ad that Noiseredux posted.
Lets not forget that the Game.com could go online too, and was the first handheld to do so afaik. And it had a touch screen. It sucked so bad, but it had ideas ahead of it's time for sure.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:19 am
by ZeroAX
I think a lot of people are confusing online play (mmos, online multiplayer), with online downloads. Those technologies shown for consoles before the 32-bit era were primitive downloadable content systems. Don't know if there was a way to have online multiplayer on 32-bit consoles.
But I too think that the Dreamcast was the first console to allow online multiplayer gaming. And if it wasn't the Dreamcast that was first, I don't think the first console would have been something made before 1995. It must have first become big on PCs before a console manufacturer thought of doing it.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:30 am
by noiseredux
ZeroAX wrote:But I too think that the Dreamcast was the first console to allow online multiplayer gaming. And if it wasn't the Dreamcast that was first, I don't think the first console would have been something made before 1995. It must have first become big on PCs before a console manufacturer thought of doing it.
well the SNES and Genesis had those modems that allowed online vs. gameplay.
Re: Widespread gaming history myths
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:06 am
by ZeroAX
noiseredux wrote:ZeroAX wrote:But I too think that the Dreamcast was the first console to allow online multiplayer gaming. And if it wasn't the Dreamcast that was first, I don't think the first console would have been something made before 1995. It must have first become big on PCs before a console manufacturer thought of doing it.
well the SNES and Genesis had those modems that allowed online vs. gameplay.
Really? That's amazing. I know the satelliview and the Sega channel, but I never heard of this before. Which games were supported? In which countries? How were the modems called? How well did it work?