Stalling and drawing out the argument? Talk about projecting. The only one "stalling" here is you.Foolproof said:snip
Semantics, somethings actual meaning is semantics.Foolproof said:Yes, and only an anal retentive accountant or a skull-crushingly annoying hipster would say that the semantics of what makes something independent is more important than the traits most commonly associated with a good indie game. The traits of which are the important things in this instance, not the fucking word indie.Vigormortis said:Stalling and drawing out the argument? Talk about projecting. The only one "stalling" here is you.Foolproof said:snip
Instead of actually refuting my claim, you simply throw into question how I provided my claim.
All but the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, in this case, an extremely weak straw-man.
For a game to be considered "indie", it had to be developed, funded, and produced independently. I.E. a single company handled the games production. If more than one company is involved, and more than one games company is credited on the box or in the opening credit screens, then it's NOT an "indie" game.
I don't care if the credits included a small company like Giant Sparrow and a large company like Sony, or two small independent companies like Mojang and Re-Logic. If more than one company is making/funding the game, then it's not "indie".
How you're failing to grasp that is beyond me. Perhaps, instead of just calling me names you can try regaling us all with your definition of what constitutes an "indie game".
You are arguing semantics - that is one of the purest ways to show you that you are completely wrong. Now just admit it.
And yet...you STILL fail to actually address my points. You still haven't given your definition of what constitutes an indie game.Foolproof said:Yes, and only an anal retentive accountant or a skull-crushingly annoying hipster would say that the semantics of what makes something independent is more important than the traits most commonly associated with a good indie game. The traits of which are the important things in this instance, not the fucking word indie.
You are arguing semantics -
No. One of the "purest" ways to "show you that you are completely wrong" (love that superfluous you in there, by the way), is to avoid answering the question(s) presented to you and using straw-man arguments. Which, is all you've done....that is one of the purest ways to show you that you are completely wrong. Now just admit it.
I see what you did there.GrimHeaper said:Semantics, somethings actual meaning is semantics.
Hey maybe semantics doesn't mean anything here, his semantics are just semantics after all.
Semantic semantic semantic.
Oh Mr. Sterling. You assume I'm not doing the Mario all the time.Jimothy Sterling said:HEY GUYS DO A MARIO!
He started at "Moving the Goalposts" waaaayyy back when he called the Gamecube a "dismal failure".Vigormortis said:All but the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, in this case, an extremely weak straw-man.
There is no need to have "smart" functionality built into the TV, you can buy Blue-ray players with all of the features built in for less than £100 (including Sony funnily enough) and Android OS individual boxes for less than £70. Branded TVs from Samsung or Apple have a growing library of apps and digital content and allow you to swap or stream content between tablets, phones and your TV.dbenoy said:The reason why I'm not interested in smart TVs is because it doesn't give you the ability to swap out the functionality when needed.
Consoles do a great job in that regard. Not only can I switch out systems I don't like, but if no single system gives me all that I want, then I just connect them both.
Ironically, the ability to swap out the software in a TV isn't something that's technologically challenging. Depending on the design, the entire TV interface system, in every detail (right down to how you change channels), could be fully contained on an SD card and be swapped casually by the most untechnical of users.
I don't see the industry going that way, though. The TV manufacturers want to maintain an iron grip on which software is allowed, so they design it in precisely the opposite direction. They lock in their own software.
And that will be the undoing of the entire concept. The first time someone finds a feature that really annoys them, they'll shut off all the smart TV features, and plug in a console instead.
And what if your TV gets too old and the TV manufacturer decides not to bother supporting it anymore? Now they're stuck with this outdated system permanently glued into their TV. Is that person ever going to trust a smart TV again? Probably not. They'll just plug in a console, and never look back.
I also recall massive hype for the Wii. The WiiU doesn't have half the amount of excitment surrounding it. Not saying that the WiiU will fail, but it won't be as successful as the Wii.MegaManOfNumbers said:That's odd. Because people said the same thing when the Wii was being prepared.
I recall at the end of it all Nintendo ended up laughing all the way to the bank while Microsoft has become obsessed with casual market.