Pristine20 said:
If the question was so stupid, why did you bother answering it? A stupid answer to a stupid quetion, makes for a tie. I asked the question because the wii has become a synonym for "fun" in gaming lexicon so someone had to clarify things. The point of the post is that everyone's console is "fun" to them so the wii should learn to share the term but you couldn't read between the lines...thats your own shortcoming.
|
What's ironic here is that very few people ON THIS FORUM debate which console is more fun (actually, it doesn't happen as frequent as most, really). It's a bait post. People are used to it here.
The reply given to you by allthehoneys is very legitament. Re-read the line "FFS, do you go around asking everyone you meet who says they're having fun to justify why it's fun for them and not for you?"
Prinstine20, I'm not about to claim Xbox and PS are no fun. I have both older ones (don't see the need to get the new ones). I enjoy Wii for many reasons. Asking for reasons as to why 29 million owners need to justify their high attachment rate (more games are sold for Wii than other consoles per unit). It's like complaining that the DS is too gimicky, or the games are too cutesie compared to the PSP. It's a pointless argument.
Asking everyone to redefine or justify their term of fun, or use it less attached to "Wii" (since going against the grain and claiming it's not) is grounds to get slammed, honestly. It's much easier to apprecaite a Wii if you owned a NES or SNES, or a gameboy, or even SegaG and Atari.
It's synonymous with "fun" because I've played it with an 86 year old grandma of mine, and a 3 year old cousin at the same time. Try that on a PS3.
Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players
Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability
Therefore, Checkers > Halo
So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.







