TheMightyEthan

Alright, mixed in there are some actual responses to my points. I'll address those. You nitpick to such a degree that your belief that a sim must be "realistic" is sure-enough to fire back legitimately with your poorly-executed classifications to distinct one from another. Nope, sorry. They're both space sims, regardless how more "realistic" one is to the other (or isn't). I'm not defining "sim" based on how realistic they are in fact, but whether or not they attempt to be realistic. X3 and Eve makes attempts at realism, though they fail to be completely realistic. Spore does not attempt to be realistic at all. It doesn't aim to be a space "sim". I love how your whole rage is based around your own misinterpretations of "quality" and "art," like me saying Spore is "cartoony" meant I was talking about its art direction. I'll give you a hint, Cochise; that was never my direction. Just like you I didn't state the obvious because I thought it WAS obvious. And then you run off on tangents no one is even talking about when the entire discussion point dealt with the "realism" to Spore. I see, I misinterpreted what you meant by "cartoony", and for that I apologize. Yeah, you are. As soon as you enter the Creature Stage you are working within the "Space Stage" game world. All that happens from that point on is you keep zooming out until the game instances the solar system and then creates the second instance of the galaxy. Yes, they do. And way to go at ignoring ecology simulation. I didn't ignore the ecology simulation, that's what I was referring to when I said "life simulation".

I agree with the jist of this, but there's a very fine line between having interesting terrain that is not 100% passable and overly corralling the player.

Oh good, you're still being vague. I'm glad we could have a mature chat then. Fine, you want me to elaborate? I wasn't elaborating because you'd have to be a fucking moron not to see the distinction, it's so blindingly obvious (as evidenced by the fact that EVERYONE but you sees it). Diddy Kong Racing is a kart racer, not a simulation racer, and I don't need a source for that just like I don't need a source for the statement "Starcraft is a real-time strategy, not a turn-based strategy." It just is, and if you can't accept it then you're either completely retarded just being difficult (trolling?). Right, and where did I call Diddy Kong Racing a racing sim? Oh, that's right. I didn't. So rage all you want. I never said you called it a racing sim, I was just making clear the distinction that I was making. I think it's cute how you call Diddy Kong Racing a "kart racer" rather than what it actually is, a racing game, because you'd then have to admit it falls in the same genre of GT5 (another racing game). It's like people have this driving need to make themselves feel better that they're not playing "vidja gaems" but "complex ultra-serious adult simulators." GT5, being such an ulta-serious complex racing sim, includes such "fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics" that when you take a turn that should flip your car it just slides across the road, or when a specific crash would render your vehicle immediately inoperable or pop a tire or something, you just keep on moving like nothing is wrong. So while you are making yourself feel better that you're playing a "racing sim" that applies some specifics like actual vehicle weight and classifications, it completely ignores everything about REAL racing (I'll give you a hint--in real-life racing, pros do not "lean" into other cars to make their turns undamaged without slowing down). So your argument is shot to hell. The only REAL sims I know of is Microsoft's slew of stuff (like Flight Simulator). Of course they're both racers. I never said they weren't. In fact, the nature of both of them as racing games is what makes the analogy work. Also, you make a whole lot of assumptions. Like assuming I like GT5. I don't, I can't stand sim racers, give me arcade racers and kart racers any day of the week. This one is especially amusing, because I said earlier that I don't like GT5. Oh, you mean like the realism in X3 where a planet's gravitational pull comes into play, or how you can land on planets? Or how massive-in-mass ships in Eve can make hairpin turns without so much trouble to never experience a collision or all those lovely sound explosions (I know, they're "pre-rendered" sounds explained in the lore--I so buy that, uh huh)? Or how both some how manage to put a camera behind your ship and then allows you to rotate that camera where ever you'd like? 1) I never said they were completely realistic in every way. 2) You're picking on camera angle? Wow... Yes, because you MUST have a real-life example of something in order to attempt to simulate it. Simulations can NEVER be based solely on theory, but must have an anchor in practice. I understood. I understood that so well that I pointed that out when you were being Mr. Vague, but then you raged and told me that's not what you were saying. But hey, you're saying it now. So to recap: you rage when I called you out on what you were doing, you rage when I ask you to clarify, and then you're raging because...why exactly? Because you want me to agree with you or something? Wait, what? When did I ever say that I wasn't referring to realism? Once I said I wasn't referring to quality of the game, and once I said I wasn't referring to the art. I stand by both those statements. So all that planet orbiting garbage or gravitational pull to the galactic core or the ecology makeup of a planet...that's just what? Fluff? There is a life simulation going on in some of the earlier stages, but I don't believe that it's actually running at the space stage (I could be wrong about that though). Also, the planetary orbits and stuff aren't simulated, it's just locked in on circular "orbits" around the stars (do they even orbit or are they just stationary? I can't remember). Again with the assumptions. I happen to quite like Spore, thank you very much (though the space stage was a disappointment because it felt like a big step backward compared to the way the rest of the game built up). And despite how simplistic it is I would be quite willing to call the civilization stage a real-time strategy, even though that lumps it in with my beloved Starcraft, Company of Heroes, and Rise of Nations. This has nothing to do with how serious or not Spore is. And now I am done, because I still believe it to be most likely that you're trolling, and I won't feed the troll any more. If you can actually construct an argument that truly addresses one of my points then I will respond to it, but I'm through deconstructing straw men.

Oh good, you're still being vague. I'm glad we could have a mature chat then. Fine, you want me to elaborate? I wasn't elaborating because you'd have to be a fucking moron not to see the distinction, it's so blindingly obvious (as evidenced by the fact that EVERYONE but you sees it). Diddy Kong Racing is a kart racer, not a simulation racer, and I don't need a source for that just like I don't need a source for the statement "Starcraft is a real-time strategy, not a turn-based strategy." It just is, and if you can't accept it then you're either completely retarded just being difficult (trolling?). As a kart racer, Diddy Kong Racing has at its core the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles (it also has planes and hovercraft, but that is not relevant to my point), just like Gran Turismo 5. However, where Gran Turismo 5 attempts to create a detailed simulation of the cars involving intricate fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics simulations, Diddy Kong Racing instead opts for a much more stylized approach (and here I'm not talking about art, I'm talking about game mechanics) which captures the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles without worrying too much about getting a perfect simulation of the real world. Similarly, the Spore space stage has at its core the idea of space exploration/colonization/life-in-space, just like Eve or X3. However, where Eve and X3 strive to create realistic worlds in that setting (especially in the context of economics, but in other areas as well), Spore opts for a more stylized, whimsical approach without any regard whatsoever for realism in any way. To break it down still further, and hopefully eliminate any chance of confusion: the distinction I was making, that apparently everyone but you understood, was that Gran Turismo 5 is like Eve and X3 in that they strive for realism (with varying degrees of success), whereas Diddy Kong Racing and Spore's space stage make no attempts at realism, opting instead for more stylized approaches (STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT ART). Spore is not a space sim because it makes no attempt to "simulate" anything.

There are more facets to games than "art style" and "quality".

I never said anything about it being cartoony. That's the second time you've attacked my point based on something I didn't say.

Except in this case Diddy Kong Racing has sold five times as more copies as Gran Turismo 5 and had millions of dollars more spent in marketing. Spore sucks but that game has sold better than any other video game dealing with space (sim, flight, RTS, etc.). I'm not making a statement about the quality/sales of either game (I love both Diddy Kong Racing, and don't much care for GT5), just saying that they're completely different kinds of games. Spore isn't a "space sim" any more than Diddy Kong Racing is a simulation racer, but that doesn't mean either of them is bad (Spore's space stage is bad, but not because it's not a sim) or commercially unsuccessful.

I guess there's also Resident Evil. "You were almost a Jill sandwich." "Step away from the door, I'm going to kick THIS door down."

lmao, that line cracks me up every time. I hate to say it, but I think mine is probably Portal.

Putting Spore in with X3 or Eve is like lumping Diddy Kong Racing in with Gran Turismo 5.

I believe that Heavy Rain for Move is just an update, but I'm not 100% on that.

$9.99 on Steam sale. Even though I've already played the shit out of all of those games on 360. Why must you do this to me, Steam?

Yeah, you can play GTA IV on PC with a pad. @Agamemnon: You can't get GTA or GTA2 on Steam individually, you can only get them as part of the package. So even though they're "free" in the package, you still have to buy the package to get them.

VC > 3 > SA

"You were gone for two years." "I was dead." "Still, you could have like, called or something." "I was FUCKING DEAD!" "I just can't be with someone who would abandon me like that."

Yeah, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of responses here, if not all of them, are loosely defining "cry" as "my eyes got watery" or something similar.

Yeah, Spiderman 2, definitely.

Ah, I knew they had a nice one that people wouldn't use to actually play with, but I figured even the less-fancy you-can-actually-play-with-it one would have some sort of crappier light-up capability.

I'm so tempted cause it's so cheap, but I would probably never play any of those games (I already played the crap out of GTA III, VC, and SA on Xbox).

I've heard a few Americans pronounce it "prih-vacy", but the vast majority say "pry-vacy".

Your monitor might have it even if your video card doesn't support it. My monitor has an option to automatically adjust the aspect ratio to whatever the aspect ratio of the incoming signal is. It won't fix stuff like stretched cutscenes in 16:9 Splinter Cell, but it will sidebar the picture if you play at a 4:3, 5:4, or 16:10 resolution instead of 16:9

Does that light up? If so I command you to take a picture of it in the dark.

If you'd asked me that like 5 years ago I would have said GTAIII, but now I don't know...

The Widescreen Gaming Forum has a lot of fixes for stuff like that. Here's the Splinter Cell page. I use that site a lot for playing older games.

The only game midnight launch I've ever gone to was Halo 3. I usually just don't care enough to go out at midnight to stand in line and pick up the game when I can just wait until the next morning and do it without a line.