mirgro said:
CGI-Quality said:
mirgro said:
CGI-Quality said:
mirgro said:
CGI-Quality said:
Well, the only way anything is inferior within a debate is if you're arguing fact vs opinion. Yes, facts are always superior because you can't dispute them, but in here, there have only been opinions.
Nobody is saying that you , Squill or anyone else that doesn't think Naughty Dog are the best devs are "factually" wrong (Hell, I don't even think they are). But the people that do are entitled to that, and can't be factually proven wrong on this.
I don't understand the heat over that.
|
That is absolutely false.
As I said in another thread, I am sure that there types of people who will label Avatar as a better movie than The Godfather Part 2.
While you can say that Avatar was a more entertaining movie than GF2, there is absolutely no way anyone can claim that it was a better movie. As such, the opion of "Avatar is better" is a very inferior opinion to "Godfather 2 is better." The same can be applied when talking about directors, "Michael Bay is the best director" is an extmeley inferior opnion to "Coppola is the best director."
The same should apply to the video game as well, the medium and the players just aren't mature enough yet for that to happen. Just as in movies where you can have entertaining garbage, same with video games, except it seems that people are too insecure in video games and they have to even label the entertaining garbage they love as "good."
P.S. Loved Revenge of the Sith and hated 2001, but you will absolutely never catch me saying that Revenge was a better movie than 2001. Another example of a person being able to separate what they like from how things actually stand.
|
For it to be "false", you'd have to prove it otherwise on a level that's indisputable. You have not. You have reiterated what I've been saying, that this is an objective situation, one that, no matter how intellectual you want to sound, hasn't and can't really be proven factually.
|
You can though. "Fun" isn't a measure of a movie's or a book's quality. You have acting, plot, themes, motifs, etc. etc. all of which can easily be said to be better. However"fun" is never even considered. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of fun crappy movies. The same applies for video games, there are plety of things to measure, such as inovation, features, plot, themes, etc. without having the objective "fun." However, as I said, it seems that the medium and gamers aren't even close to being mature enough to realize that "fun" isn't a sign of quality.
As for claiming who's best etc. Blizzard, Valve, and BioWare side, since they are still part of the PC largely, not consoles, anyone saying someone other than Miyamoto as being the best in consoles is just an idiot. You can easily measure the achievements of Miyamoto and Naughty Dog. Sure you can say Naughty Dog are the best, but that's a very idiotic opinion, just like saying that Michael Bay is the best.
|
People who think it aren't idiots, nor is it an "iditotic" opinion (pretty ridiculous thinking right there). Not everyone thinks Miyamoto is the greatest dev, period.
Regardless, hearing this from you tells me you're not someone to debate with on a fair-minded level.
|
The achievements in the console video gaming are easily comparable. It's not even a "apples to oranges" it's simple "oranges to oranges." As such it is very easy to see who has done more, better, and consistently. Given everything, it very much is idiotic, or immature, or naive, to say Naughty Dog is better than Miyamoto.
As I said, there are plenty of retarded people out there who think Michael Bay is the shit.
|
