| dib8rman said: You call it rhetoric, I call it application vis-a-vis. Specific titles sure, but the term core can't be used to describe a game, as Mario Galaxy isn't core, it does however have a core audience on Wii platform, however Mario Galaxy doesn't have a core Audience on PS3 because well... it's not on that platform, see where I'm getting to? My point was simple, I'm supplying Happy's argument with logical fodder (though he really doesn't need it). At this point all you've said is that I used a tool of formal debating to prove my point and that regardless of this it is simply BS to you for no apparent reason other than you believe it is BS, so good night to you sir. "Let's agree to disagree." - That's the not so obnoxious variation to the quote in your signature. |
Your condescending tone betrays your intentions. Where is the point which you are trying to articulate? "Core" is a term used to describe a certain type of game. Here you are saying "Core" is not a description but a mathematical equation applied to determine "hindsight estimates" for basically any game. You realize that the definition you provided for "Core" is now so broad you could apply it to any situation, tailored and molded perfectly to fit your point of view? In that vein I could say something like every Bluray movie sold is a core game for PS3 because Wii doesn't play Bluray. And you would say no a movie is not a game. And I could say I pushed the play button and it was quite a fun game. You see? The definition you gave for core is vague at best but closer to mendacious. I commend your ambition padawan, but you will struggle to convince anyone of anything when you are dancing on the border of reality. Good night, and good luck.
