If I had to make an uneducated guess (cosmology is not my thing), it's probably an unknown electromagnetic/plasma process that helps form things like galaxies and solar systems. If that's the case, the electromagnetic filaments would be far away and very huge.
Yes, Blu-ray is doing very well. Is it perfect? No. It does have problems with DRM and some poor quality hardware for the price (as lordjedi alluded to above). However, fundamentally the format is a good product and it's good for it to be having success. If it somehow fails from here, and digital downloads are really a huge threat for it, then I wouldn't say that's the fault of the actual BD format being unsuccessful on its own.
They both have a case as far as I can tell, so for both parties to then give and take in an arbitration is fair.
I'm starting to get a better picture of the kind of person you are, C3PX. If I had to guess, you follow the emotional expressions of people to understand the context and motivations behind a discussion. (I don't know if that guess is correct, but it seems like a good guess none the less.) Since I tried to avoid using emotional outbursts in this thread (so as not to offend either of you or lordjedi) it seems (to me) that you then had trouble understanding where I was coming from. Unfortunately, though, in response you tried to pounce on me and attack me (for some reason) by accusing my arguments of being weak (or some simple example of nit picking). If you ask me, however, that was an error on your part. Simply because I try to discuss these issues in a way that is reserved (because I previously respected you and lordjedi) does not mean that my arguments are weak.
I knew I really didn't want to continue debating in this thread. I knew it would just make me angry. I don't like getting angry with people I mostly agree with on issues (since I'd rather be encouraging with them if anything). As a result, I tried to be patient, logical, and cold with you, C3PX, and with lordjedi (for the most part). However, this approach of mine seemed to only make things worse (either for the reason I outlined in my above paragraph or for some other reason) and so I got bored and had no desire to continue.
But, C3PX, you pressed the issue in the video game thread . . . of all the fucking places. For all your talk above that tries to accuse me of being some evil imp that simply wants to argue useless points until I can somehow "triumph," you clearly show yourself to be an empty hypocrite who, in my opinion, can easily be argued as going after the same thing. So, to answer the earnest wishes of your petty little heart, here you go (I hope this makes you happy because I'm not happy anymore):
Okay, so I went back to read the part where Lordjedi drove this discussion into the realm of insanity by defending himself against Tiptup accusing him of wanting to commit terrorism. Come on Tip, you are just being ridiculous on this one!! This exchange is NOTHING like you are making it out to be.Tiptup said:
"So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)"Lordjedi's response:
"Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from. Hell, I don't plan and execute attacks period. There's plenty of people I disagree with, but I would never wish death on them or try to kill them myself. I don't believe these actions are in line with daily perfection. I believe these actions are in line with a civilized society."
Lj simply said that he is not in line with a "supreme model of daily perfection" but that he is also not the one commiting the acts of terrorism, so whether or not he is living his life perfectly, has nothing to do with the fact that terrorist attacks are taking place in the world, because he and his actions have nothing to do with the attacks taking place. He also adds that even though he disagrees with people, he would never dream of wishing death on them, which has nothing to do with perfection, but with being civilized. In other words, the terrorists are the ones being uncivilized, they will keep doing the same kind of attacks again and again, whether or not he reads about it in the paper each and everytime wont make a bit of a difference.
Blah, blah, blah. You're talking to me as if I missed what LJ was saying there. I know what he was saying just fine, thanks. Seriously, get a clue: Yes, he's saying he's not absolutely perfect. Yes, he saying he's not a terrorist. The question is, smart one, why he was saying what he said. To the degree you guessed at what that was (above), you have actually agreed with me in your own fucking worthless post! (Good Lord!)
If you're too slow to follow what I'm saying (which now seems likely to me as I now look back at other arguments I have gotten into with you), your above statement is the exact OPPOSITE of proving that I was "just being ridiculous on this one!!" or that my exchange with lordjedi is "NOTHING" like what I was "making it out to be." Here's what you actually say (above):
"whether or not he is living his life perfectly, has nothing to do with the fact that terrorist attacks are taking place in the world"
"his actions have nothing to do with the attacks taking place."
"even though he disagrees with people, he would never dream of wishing death on them"
"the terrorists are the ones being uncivilized, they will keep doing the same kind of attacks again and again, whether or not he reads about it in the paper"
Yes! Thank you, C3PX! You just hit my proverbial nail on the fucking head! While I can't really say for sure what lordjedi was actually arguing, even you say that the most basic context seems to have him defending himself from the accusation that he might be partly responsible for terrorist attacks (his and your insistence that his actions do nothing to support terrorism). Since that is, at every point, obviously and solely contrasted with (and aimed at) my philosophical questions about caring more and perfect living, that would CLEARLY imply (in the context of the discussion by that point) that he (and now you) believed I was accusing his actions of supporting or inciting terrorism with those very same questions.
The fact that you are trying to argue against this (when your own argument is fighting against you) tells me that you aren't even trying to be fair here, C3PX. In fact, if you were honest, lordjedi even went far beyond how you tried to portray his words. He actually responds as if I'm lumping him in with people who "plan and execute attacks." Now maybe that's a mistake on his part, maybe he didn't mean to defend himself as if I were the one accusing him of that, but considering the way he was strongly contrasting his statements with my words, that seems the most logical context for me to assume. I don't get where you think you have the fucking right to get on your high horse and pretend I don't know what I'm talking about here (particularly when you now say he's saying the exact same thing I said he was saying).
In the post where lordjedi said these things, he made even stronger statements that clinched his meaning in my mind (statements you didn't even address). Seriously, C3PX, how many times and in how many ways does he have to deny he's being a terrorist in direct contrast to my words before reasonability allows me to assume he's responding to my statements and questions? Observe:
lordjedi said:Tiptup said:
I'm not saying the world is an easy place to figure out, and I'm not even sure where we would start acting better, but when I honestly look at myself, I know I'm not working with pure motives or pure judgments. To automatically assume I have achieved perfection when it comes to caring about people that face the evils of this world is not something I can do.
I'm not even going to suggest that all of my motives and judgments are entirely pure, but nothing about them involves wanting to take the lives of others simply because of their ideals. What I said was that those muslim terrorists deserve what they get because they are terrorists. Just like all terrorists deserve what they get.
He says it plain as day here: he asserts that "nothing" about his "motives or judgements" involves him wanting to take "the lives of others simply because of their ideals."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, genius, but to my mind he's clearly making a connection of some sort: He has denied being a terrorist, at multiple points he has denied wanting to kill people over idealogical disagreements, and here he has denied his "motivations and judgements" as leading to terrorism. The question for you is, what are his denials being placed in contrast with? Well, in case you didn't notice by now, he's been aiming each and every denial (in that post of his) directly at my words and nothing else! (For crying out loud!)
Now maybe I'm wrong about lordjedi's actual thinking. Maybe he was denying his role as a terrorist in regard to some tangetial thought (contained in my words) that he simply forgot to mention. Maybe he didn't think I was accusing him of having a role in supporting terrorism and it sadly just ended up sounding that way. Perhaps he simply wanted to respond to my words with his denials in a way that was unrelated to what I meant with those SAME words. Either way, that's not my fucking fault! You don't have the right to call me a dick because other people have trouble keeping track of obvious contexts when they try to communicate. To the contrary, it's the job of other people to provide a proper context for their statements when the most basic context of the discussion (at the point the statements are made) might confuse the meaning. In this case, o bright one, lordjedi had MULTIPLE opportunities to state the true reason for why he felt the need to deny being a terrorist. EACH AND EVERY TIME, he merely aimed his denial at my words and did stated NOTHING else in terms of context.
In case you haven't noticed by now. I fucking hate it when people put words in my mouth! I tried to be a good boy and not get angry when this discussion first went off into this retarded territory, I tried to remain polite, but you couldn't let it go, could you, C3PX? You have to act like you're some high and mighty arbiter of the truth. Well fuck that. I'm through with trying to be friendly with you now. You're just another person with stupid opinions on a stupid forum and I could care less about you. Seriously, this just goes to show where trying to be nice always gets me. Most people just aren't worth it.
Uhg . . . to me this is all absolutely irrational . . . . All I did was ask a simple, little, purely-philosophical question about whether or not the world might be a "better place" if we all simply "cared a little more" (which was certainly on-topic as far as I can tell), and then you two start responding as if I'm accusing everyone on this forum (or in the "world") of being terrorists!? Now, to top it all off, I have to defend myself from a person who wants to accuse me of being a person who makes "outrageous assumptions" because I supposedly like to have fucking fights with people? What the fuck?!
In C3PX's world I actually enjoy the process of alienating people (people who I otherwise I would prefer to be friends with)? In C3PX's world I'm someone who doesn't let go of issues because I simply can't stop being an asshole that enjoys infuriating others with my worthless disagreements? And, in C3PX's world, I'm the one who has some irrational need to prove myself as somehow more "right" than everybody else? I suppose I do those things to a degree, yeah, but not so much more than your everyday, average person does. To the degree I discuss disagreements furtehr than other people, I'm fairly certain I actually like to challenge and discover truth and enjoy that process. To the degree I'm admittedly a dick, I actually try to keep myself from getting heated and expressing the kinds of offensive statements that "start fights." I find that fights unnecessarily distract me from my pursuit of logic and truth. I also don't like fights because they push away and depress people I would otherwise like to be friends with. I don't know where ANYTHING I have done in this thread or other threads proves otherwise.
Well, at any rate, you wanted a real fight C3PX, and now you've got one. Whatever . . . .
Oh, wait, here's some more thoughts in your post that should probably reply to (for your sake):
I also might add that a "supreme model of perfection" is a really odd thing to bring into the discussion? Does somebody have to read every news story and weep for every death in order to live a perfect life? After all, what is a "supreme model of daily perfection" and who sets the standards for it? And when did the notion of "perfection" or "purity" become such a pivotal part of this discussion?
What people need to do in order to live their own "perfect life" is unknown to me and irrelevant to what I was discussing (it's a purely hypothetical basis for an ethical point). My question to lordjedi was to simply ask if the world might be even a slightly better place if we all simply did our own little parts a little bit better and, specifically, we all cared a little bit more about certain things than we currently do at present. To answer your question, there's absolutely nothing "odd" about bringing that question up in this thread. Do you want me to quote your original post and post #7 of this thread and tell you how my questions were on topic?
To the degree I mentioned "absolute purity" that was an attempt of mine to show lordjedi another way to think of my original question (which he kept refusing to understand and strangely acted defensive and overly-argumentative towards). I don't see how that's so "odd" in the asinine way you're trying to accuse me of.
Again, I hate it when people put fucking words into my mouth. As far as I now regard this thread, you and lordjedi weren't even fucking trying to understand what I was asking and what I was saying. lordjedi just wanted to feel good as he attempted to correct a person on this yet once more, and you were probably still angry at me over your stupid mistakes in past discussions. Oh well, whether that reflects reality or not, in the future I would ask that you don't apply your willfully stupid misunderstandings to my thoughts when I've, in actuality, gone out of my way to state the opposite.
After the above quoted exchange took place, and the topic changed to definitions of purity and perfection, the thread kind of crashed and burned, and became a long winded argument that I am still not clear as to what it is an argument about. If there is still a need to prove where this thing went off-topic, I'd say your misunderstanding of LJ's comment (which was clear as day to me) and the mention of a "supreme model of perfect" is the precise spot, but who really cares?)
Oh, another lovely thought excercise from the genius who thinks he knows everything about me and about my arguments.
If you want to know where this thread first went into the realm of stupidity, it was before the point you're thinking of. I'll quote you the two posts where it first veered off course:
lordjedi said:Tiptup said:lordjedi said:
Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack. What more can be said?
That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)
But who says we don't? Just because we don't talk about it here, doesn't mean we don't care. There's plenty of things I care about that I never discuss here.
If the world were a better place, terrorists assholes like that wouldn't exist.
C3PX said:Tiptup said:lordjedi said:
Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack. What more can be said?
That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)
I don't think it is an issue of mankind as a whole (or the world), caring is something that has to be worked out on a more personal level.
I asked a simple-to-understand, purely-philosophical question and you both somehow managed to respond with very incorrect portrayals of it:
1. Where did I say anything in my question that required lordjedi to refute the notion that we don't care at all? (I was merely proposing that we might have the ability to care "a little more.")
2. Where did my question require lordjedi to inform me that the world would be a better place without terrorists? (First, that was already an important, tacit assumption of my question. Second, I'm not going to bother asking if terrorists are going to be better people because they don't care about ethical, philosophical questions like these. I asked lordjedi my question because I thought he would care about it . . . boy, I was fucking wrong there.)
3. Where did my statement require you, C3PX, to refute the notion that when "mankind as a whole" cares, that caring is always on a person by person basis when we consider the most fundamental level? (First, when I mentioned "the world" it was clearly referring to the possibility of it being a somewhat better place, as a basis to propose how each of us might be somewhat better people and therefore care more. Second, when I mentioned "we" caring, I don;t see how it was hard for you to imagine that I meant all of us caring as specific individuals.)
You know, one thing that you, C3PX, and lordjedi both seem to share in common (if you ask me) is the way you two both love to go around correcting others (I guess it makes you both feel authoritative and smart?). When I see something I disagree with, I try to make sure the person is actual saying what I'm responding to or else I will ask a question or provide my own context. You two wonderments, however, assume ridiculous things about my statements and then directly, clearly, and undeniably respond as if my statements support the ridiculous interpretations you then go on to respond to. In comparison to the "outragious assumptions" you have accused me of, C3PX, you are far more guilty of the same. As Jesus said, "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" All I say is, "If you're interested in people being friendly and gracious, why do you even want to argue contentious shit like this?" I find this whole post of yours (that I'm now responding to) to be a waste of time.
Oh well, to be honest, in the replies I made to both of these statements, I didn't bother to correct the tangential stupidity of lordjedi's reply and your reply. In hindsight, it's now pretty obvious that I should have (it would have avoided all of the nonsense this thread exploded into). Instead, I was worried about being nice (and worthless shit like that); instead, I tried to gently nudge lordjedi back to my actual question and didn't try to correct him. That was a dumb mistake. I've now more than learned my lesson. All this time today I could have been arguing something substantial, but I've instead been busy answering what C3PX cares about. It all started when C3PX ran to the aide and defense of lordjedi and became a fool in the process. He then pushed the fight he started to a further extreme and forces me to say and argue why he's a fool outright. Wonderful. This was a lot of fucking fun.
Oh, and, C3PX, if you simply try to respond to this post with one of your brilliantly cheeky statements, I just want you to know that, this time, that won't be good enough. I'm not going to politely respond to statements like "are you finished" or "just drop it already," because this time you can't deny being the aggressor (as I believe you were in our past "fights" as well).
You're the one who undeniably started the shit this time around. You're also the one who clearly perpetuated this fight and you're also the one who clearly wouldn't let it go even after I had moved on. This time you're going to finish what you started: either you run away like a coward and refrain from replying, you tell me (and rationally prove) where I'm wrong here (with clear logic), or you simply admit that you actually didn't have the right to chastise me—notably in the ferocious manner you used in this thread. I can accept silence, the fact that I might be wrong, and the admission of a mistake from you. Anything else you say would (as far as I can tell) simply be weaseling out of a fight you started, and, in that event, you'll simply be revealing yourself to be just one more fool on the internet who stretched himself too far (and "a dick" as you so delightfully called me earlier).
I'll definitely be waiting for the final product.
Doesn't Sony own MGM now?
That was hilarious, Sean. Thanks for passing it on.
Nanner Split said:Montcalm said:
We feel your pain.
Hmm, this thread should be in the Star Wars General Discussion. If you read Montcalm's post closely, the original trilogy is what he's talking about.
And Tiptup, are you readheaded? ;P
Nope. I is brown.
My best friend is red headed, and my younger brother is red headed, however. :)
Metal Gear Solid is an amazing game. It has its goofy side and so whoever happens to dislike it for that is entitled to do so, but I found it incredibly fun. I haven't played any of the three sequels that came after it though.
Gaffer Tape said:
but I think most people familiar with it can agree that it's considered harmless humor nowadays.
I think C3PX already meant to communicate that and I'd be perfectly willing to believe that most people who use it mean nothing (as with a lot of popular phrases with bad origins). However, the phrase itself sounds like it might have been primarily negative in some way (at some time). I found another version (which people on the interwebs say is even more popular) that goes "I'll beat you like a red headed stepchild." That one definitely seems to have at least a tiny degree of hostility. :)
Either way, this is interesting. If I can find something more substantial that would be cool.
It doesn't really have anything to do with people from the UK, or some irrational dislike of redheaded people they might have. Zombie is from Canada I believe (could be mistaken), and I have heard people in the states use that expression my entire life. It isn't intended to suggest that red headed people are weird or anything, it means the exact same thing as the term "black sheep" the one that doesn't quite fit in, looks differently from the rest, etc. i.e. a family has four kids, three with brown hair, but the oldest child from a previous marriage has red hair and looks different from the others. There are no anti-redhead sentiments here.
Odd. I'd never heard that phrase in my life. (Perhaps Minnesotans don't really use it much.)
Otherwise, on the surface the phrase sounds "anti-redhead" to me. Are you saying that you have firm knowledge that the predominant use of it has had no negative meaning to any degree? (I must question that assertion in the absence of precise evidence.)
wat the hell do you mean by "every family has the red-headed step-child?
Apparently some people in the UK have irrational traditions that dislike people with red hair. I'm guessing the figure of speech that Zombie picked up came from people with that attitude (maybe Zombie was watching British people speak?).
As an American I found that anti-red-head attitude very weird. I have a younger brother who has red hair and he's as normal as can be. Oh well. Hehe, strange world.
But yeah my thread title uses talk speech and not written speech, but i'm not writing an essay or a book here,lol.
Hehe. Don't worry about it. It was simply bad enough that I felt I had to say something.
Joss Whedon is a genius. (That's all I have to say.)
Hey thats not fair to say that at all about me, i liked Insurrection sure it was not as sucessful as first contact but insurrection felt like real star trek and first contact was a action flick.
Hmm, I could have sworn you said Insurrection was bad in an earlier post. Sorry if I was incorrect there. I know some other people (perhaps in another thread) also said they had issues with the movie. I remember Anchorhead saying he disliked it a lot. Oh well.
I'm glad at least two other people here like the movie. It's actually my favorite after Wrath of Khan. As for First Contact, it's perfect to describe it as an action flick. That's not to say I don't like First Contact a lot (action movies are cool after all), but I think it really misses the point of Star Trek.
I'm finished talking about issues in this thread (if that's what you're asking). I may speak up again if another issue catches my eye, however.
Why do you ask?
I am not a person that has a hard time communicating my thoughts, the problem is you are a person that wants to pick fights all the time.
I am tired of explaining every sentence of every post I write that you don't understand.
So, I'm a person that wants to pick fights all the time?
Well, if I now follow your logic, when I spoke of the competition between N64 and the PSX, I now take it that you believe I was actually attempting to pick a fight with you (as apposed to actually wanting to discuss issues that interested me). How curious.
This is a rather strange place for our discussion to go, so I'll just say this: to the degree you perceive any "fight" between you and me in this present discussion, I think you should lay the blame squarely on yourself and not me. When I look at who's actually doing what here, you're the one talking about "outrage" and "fights" (not me).
However, I don't think saying anything more than that is necessary and if you want to discuss this "fight" nonsense (and who's supposedly starting it) then we can do that over the forum's private messaging (or at least start a different thread). For my part I want to discuss the actual "video gaming" issues at hand. If you don't want to discuss the issues I want to discuss (and you feel I'm only"fighting" with you, or not understanding you, or whatever) then you simply don't need to respond.
I said the N64 kicked the PSX's ass. You said, the N64 didn't kick the PSX's ass and that the PSX clearly won the war. I agree that it lost the war, when I said it kicked the PSX's ass, I meant because it is a better console and hardware/quality game wise it kicked the PSX's ass. That is why I wrote the offending line.
I primarily follow the logic of what people say based on the context of a discussion. If people are saying things that I believe are logically incorrect, according to what would generally be understood by most people from those words, and I have a personal reason to discuss that statement, then I will pick out those points and discuss them.
We were talking about sales and how that relates to the quality of a console. You brought up graphics and said that the "N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass." I then brought up the fact that the N64 was weak in comparison to the PSX in some key ways as a way to prove that the N64 did not kick the Playstation's "pathetic little ass."
You then focused on my line about how the PSX sold more units (which wasn't a reason for the PSX's greatness but just a supportive sidenote on my part) as something you already knew (which I was already guessing you knew but I wanted to simply bring up the data point for the sake of our conversation). You then brought up the weakest of my reasons for why the PSX was not a "pathetic" peice of hardware that got its ass kicked ("long and involved") and proceeded to go off on a long rant about why I was potentially wrong with my specific point there. Then, you finished up by saying that higher sales does not mean higher quality.
I already understood your point about how you thought the N64 kicked the ass of the PSX in terms of graphics (as apposed to sales). I was actually arguing against that specific point of yours and brought up clear reasons to disagree with your statement. You then proceeded to respond only to my weakest reason for why the PSX was not crap and ignored the rest of my reasons. You also responded to my statement that the PSX had more sales as if you wanted to argue against someone who thought that point would be a direct reason why the PSX was an objectively better system. All the while my other points in defense of the PSX's hardware strength were ignored by you despite their logical relevence to the issues you were actually responding to.
All in all, as far as I can tell, I had no misunderstanding in this discussion and needed no special explanations from you. After that I did go on to be confused as to why you argued some issues and not others, but that was not a problem with what you said or didn't say, but, in actuality, a problem with me understanding why you chose to say what you said (and why you chose to leave other things unsaid). As such, I went on to ask you a question that you went on to label "outrageous" and the rest of our discussion has branched from there.
I said "outrageous assumtions" because you do that all the time. Like assuming Lj thought you accussed him of being a terrorist when there was absolutely no reason to assume he thought any such thing. Since there was no indication that I hadn't read your whole post, it is a funny thing to be worried about. Don't certain points in people's posts stick out to you at times? I see people only respond to one point made in someone elses post all the time, I don't see that as a reason to suppose they didn't read the rest of the post, just that that one sentence is what mattered to them.
You're bringing up issues from another thread now? If you really want me to reply to what you were saying in that thread (which I was getting bored of) then I will, but when (and if) I do it will be in that thread, not in this one.
I want to see Watchmen when it comes out and would be disappointed if it did not. However, I'm skeptical of the movie being a great translation of the comic and I won't lose too much sleep if it's delayed.
Also, skyjedi, your title for this thread uses poor sentence structure.
I just watched Insurrection with my girlfriend (right after Christmas) and I still think it's a fantastic Star Trek movie. I don't get what any of you might dislike about it so much (skyjedi in particular). I'd be curious to know your reasoning.
While the story is a bit cliche for the Star Trek universe, it's still dramatic and well done. From there the characters are likable and believable. The action is nice throughout (and fantastic to watch when it comes to the ship battles). And, lastly, there are a lot of hilarious parts that make me laugh.
I suppose the biggest flaw for the movie (in my mind) would be the fact that it isn't successful with Star Trek's sense of wonder and exploration (the alien planet and people are rather shallow and hollow). After that, beyond the questions of disobeying orders and standing up for what's right, there really isn't too much that gets my mind thinking about this movie. Lastly, the technological elements of the story were thrown around too loosely for me to enjoy them on their own (which is always a nice aspect of sci-fi). However, each of those points just make the movie mediocre (not necessarily bad) and a lot of other Star trek movies also do a horrible job with them. The movie, on the whole, is still entertaining for what it does right.
I'm thinking that people who don't like Insurrection might be a little too serious about themselves. To elaborate, they probably didn't like being presented with humor in Star Trek and would, instead, have preferred the usual "epic" or "badass" approach we seem to always get from Hollywood. I suppose I can understand this perspective: when people spend 7 dollars on a movie ticket they want something they can expect to enjoy. However, I appreciate stories that can try something different and go with an approach that is new. Insurrection isn't great, but it's still good and offers a kind of entertainment that isn't tried nearly as often.
I said nothing about not having read the other reasons you posted. Really not sure how/why you so often come to such outrageous conclusions. Perhaps I agreed with you on all other points, and that is why I did not comment on them. I certainly don't think that would be an unreasonable assumption to make.
Outrageous conclusions? So often?
You said (and I quoted) that sales aren't an indicator of what looks best. This was after you finished a long criticism of one of my reasons for why I believe the PSX (eventually) sold more units than the N64. You were talking to me and so it seems fairly obvious that you were trying to argue against my opinions with that statement of yours. How was that an outrageous assumption for me to make? (I didn't even fully make that assumption; I asked you a question to verify if I was interpreting you correctly.) If you are a person that has trouble communicating your thoughts then that's not my problem. You should have made it more clear that you didn't think I believed that.
Anyways, Darth Chaltab, I'm not offended by C3PX's misunderstanding of my "long and in-depth" point. It wasn't and still isn't very clear on my part. It's a rather hard to define quality (as I was using the term). For my part, I'm not heated over this discussion at all.
I actually believe the N64 had the best graphics of that generation to the degree where I think the PS2 is at a very comparable level with it. I also prefferred the N64 in terms of its gameplay as well: Ocarina of Time, Diddy Kong Racing, Super Smash Bros., Majora's Mask, Goldeneye, StarFox64, Turok 1&2, Episode I Racer (which was actually quite fun), Castlevania64, Bomberman64, Paper Mario, Shadows of the Empire, and others.
However, a strict ability to render graphics and perform quick gameplay is not all a system can excell with. Pre-rendered content can be very important for certain types of games and can often make games very compelling with visuals and sounds (that was all I was trying to communicate). The PSX used a medium that had far more storage capacity (for the price) and that allowed it to be far more compatible with games that relied on a lot of detailed content to enhance gameplay.
Most games for the PSX sucked. I'm no fan of racing games, fighting games, or sports games. I also dislike it when crappy companies are contracted to make important franchise games, but that's most often the case (Goldeneye was a brilliant fluke). I can't speak for your personal experiences, C3PX, or for your friends, but I liked the PSX for other types of games and can easilly see why it was so popular.
I hope that never happens to my 360. (It's one of the newer HDMI models but it still has the old processor and heat sink design.)
As for it being rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved? What do you mean? Maybe I am not quite understanding what you mean by "long and involved". In fact, I cannot think of too many of the games I owned that were not pretty long and pretty involved.
I mean "long and involved" to be a game that has a lot of unique gameplay, aural, and visual content from start to finish. The N64 showed that it could do that with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and quite a few other games, yes, but by and large those games were fewer and didn't have the same breadth or detail that PSX games easily had by comparison. Ocarina of Time was fun and long in terms of gameplay, but it relied upon a lot of recycled content, low-resolution content, other space saving tricks. It's just a fact that there weren't as many N64 games that were "involved" in the sense I'm trying to speak of here (levels/locations, enemies/challenges, music, voice acting, sound effects, textures, animation and the like).
The PSX, on the other hand, (just looking at the titles I own) had FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, the various Final Fantasy Anthology releases, Metal Gear Solid, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, Symphony of the Night, and Vagrant story, all of which were amazing in terms of their content (yes, even movies and music is nice). Do you really, truly believe those games could have been done just as well for the N64 for the same costs? You believe that the CD format and the ease of translating content to the PSX had nothing to do with many game companies choosing it over the N64?
You're right in pointing out that the PSX had more games than the N64, and I suppose the ratio of short, simple games to long and involved games isn't that far off bewteen the two consoles. However, the more popular a system is, the more likely you are to get crap games being made for that system, so I don't really find a similar ratio of this kind to be anything important. The better question we should be asking in this respect is why one system got more games than another in general. In that sense, let's not forget that the N64 started out strong and didn't fail for the fact that it didn't have people who wanted good games. I'm convinced that the lower number of games being made for the N64 was due to the higher costs involved. A CD format allowed gaming companies' products to be created and copied in ways that were less time or money intensive.
The PS2 outsold The GameCube, and I think even the Xbox (though I could be wrong), sales is not always an indicator of which console packs the most power or looks the best.
Where did I say the PSX packed more power or looked better than the N64?
I said the PSX's success over the N64 was no fluke and I outlined specific reasons. I know you focused on one of my reasons (quite frankly the weakest: "long and involved games"), but are you now saying that you didn't read my other, more substantial reasons?
The PS2, since you're bringing it up, was no fluke either. It came out long before the Gamecube or Xbox, offerred people DVD playback (which was a huge draw at the time), offerred backwards compatibility to PSX/PS1 games, had a lot of game-company support, and a lot of interest from people who were already fans of Sony's original playstation. Due to those reasons, the PS2 was a very successful system. It's all pretty simple. Do you think the world is just a stupid place and the free market is stupid? Sony made good decisions that paid off for them.
I found this funny:
I definitely like my VHS edition of Phantom Menace more than the DVD edit and would like to see that on DVD.