On Nov 12, 12:09 pm, parallax-scroll <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:49 pm, Scott H <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:59 am, math_guy <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 4:36 am, Scott H <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ...my lack of experience with music industry technology would limit the discussion.
>
> > > Now we're getting to the crux of the matter: you have an issue with
> > > parallax-scroll talking tech about videogames in 1989 because YOU did
> > > not talk tech about them at that time, but I can assure you that
> > > people DID dissect games in a precise manner before 1989.
> > > Take me: I was programming my own games in BASIC, Assembler, and even
> > > machine code for 8-bit home computers like the VIC-20 and CoCo before
> > > 1985, and yet I do not claim to be a programmer. For me and my
> > > friends, it was just something we did with those machines besides play
> > > games. A significant proportion of Generation X had similar
> > > experiences with the Commodore 64, so it is insulting to suggest that
> > > intelligent discussions about games did not start until 1989.
>
> > Right, the C64 and Amiga crowds in particular seemed to have been
> > particularly entrenched in terms like sprites, parallax, etc well
> > before I saw them in a game magazine or heard the terms in an arcade.
> > I suppose I invited over generalizations of my statements with my game
> > of kickatroll but you have to realize that somebody who knew what you
> > knew was so far out of the norm you wouldn't even affect the
> > statistics.
>
> > > > ...the ability to articulate those things, much less make a comprehensive list
> > > > of changes, wasn't granted to the general public until much later than 1989.
>
> > > The "general public" doesn't ski, skate, or surf, but those things
> > > still exist; if anything, extreme sports have fared better by
> > > remaining niche. If videogames hadn't "asploded," people would still
> > > be talking about sprites, polygon counts, frame rates, and the like,
> > > albeit in much smaller numbers.
>
> > That group was so small that I literally had to wait until magazines
> > started talking about them before I even heard the terms.
>
> > > > ...I guarantee that discussion was ill-informed in all but the most dedicated
> > > > arcade gamer groups.
>
> > > So, the discussion WAS informed in the most dedicated arcade gamer
> > > groups? Thank you! :)
>
> > Not in mine, and we played enough to do SFII tournaments, beat
> > Strider, Golden Axe and Ghouls N Ghosts in one quarter, etc. There's
> > always a more elite group, but as long as arcades were around I only
> > met one guy who went to national tournaments, and he never talked
> > about graphical specs or technical anything beyond gameplay
> > limitations of a particular game.
> > Having searched Usenet many times for information I have found it
> > the best resource on technical matters. In fact, back in 2000-2001 I
> > found discussions in RGVS to be the best for challenging published
> > spec sheets and common misinterpretations of them. Almost all of
> > those posters apparently got sick of the discussion and moved on with
> > their lives though. Even then though, my discussion was with one
> > person in the group and the rest just didn't comment outside of
> > extremely general emotional statements about the quality of one
> > console's graphics over another. I guess my ultimate point here is
> > much the same as my first one but with the qualifier "almost" tagged
> > in front of no one discusses technical matters of these systems or
> > compares games with any proficiency. Hell, parallax, in this very
> > thread, has once again neglected to take ROM size, resolution, and
> > signal output quality into account in his graphical comparison.
> > That's because he's trolling, but if he hadn't posted the group would
> > still be asleep.
>
> Scott
> In the 1990s there were times & places where myself and others just
> played games agressively, never talked about specs and tech stuff.
> There were other times & places where others and myself did nothing
> *but* talk about specs, not even playing games at all.
>
> So anyway, I guess I'm a troll. Or maybe, some people just like to
> argue and attack because they have nothing better to say. I'm not in
> the mood to be negative and argue about anything except about just the
> games and hardware. I have no wish to attack & insult anyone,
> especially like Bel loves to do.
Steps to making it better:
1. Admit your wrong in all the cross posting.
2. Admit that the points of view of others are as valid as your own
and admit when you're wrong.
(I'd add here not to straw-man other people's arguments, but I don't
recall you doing this)
3. Stop cross posting and starting threads that are barely on topic to
the groups you post to.
You may need to dump the cross posting troll IDs that you use and
start fresh. My better sense tells me I'm wasting my breath, but I'd
absolutely love to have some legitimate technical discussion in here
again.