Physically I'd be objectively better than you.

Yes, under the arbitrary subjective standard of "physically."

But even then, not really, because "physically" is kinda vague. I assume you mean "in terms of physical strength."

Damn you're really reaching hard.

Somebody who can't write for shit doesn't deserve an A. Just like a Bugatti is objectively better than a Golf.

According to subjective standards that you made up.

I'm materialistic because I recognize that a Bugatti is a better car than a Golf?

It's an insult to the people who worked on and made the buggati. You're telling them all the time and effort they put into making an excellent car meant nothing, because it's basically the same as a Golf because they're both cars.

It's as if you give two students a C even though one of them deserves an A because they both handed in an essay.

Argue about you simply not enjoying PC gaming all you like. That's fine, and I respect your opinion. But don't make stupid statements like this.

lmao like i give a fuck if it's an insult, it's the truth

You give the best student an A instead of a C because you've established a subjective standard upon which the students would be measured against. Keyword subjective.

The assignment could be to write the shittiest essay possible--and suddenly, the standard is changed. That's what I'm talking about.

When you're talking about objective standards, you're talking about ceasing all subjective standards--which is why, yeah, under an objective lens, you could give all students the same grade on their essay, because there's no such thing as an objective all-encompassing standard upon which to grade essays. It's all subjective.

Quote from: Verbatim on March 27, 2017, 05:40:57 PM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on March 27, 2017, 05:34:26 PM

Think of it like - a superior product. Like a car or something. A Golf gets you from A to B, but so does a Bugatti or a Mustang.
Good luck trying to argue that a Golf is better than a Bugatti tbh.

Why is a Bugatti better than a Golf? They're both just cars.

um

Come on

DUDE MATERIAL POSSESSIONS LMAO

They do, they're just not to your liking you silly slut. If we're talking about exclusives that is.

No one is gonna give a shit about uh... idk, Battlefield on either.

but that's my point--you're gonna prefer the platform that actually has the games you want on it

if you want to play console games, then bada-bing bada-boom, console gaming is probably better for you

my problem with fatherlynick is that he's trying to argue that PC gaming is "objectively superior," when what he means to say is, "i personally prefer PC gaming"--there's nothing objective about it

if more PC gamers learned how to say that, the world would be a better place

Fuck man, there are so many indie titles with Zelda-like gameplay or art style.

I'm not really sure what else you enjoy besides Dark souls and Zelda.
You mentioned Quake - that's a big one and its infinite supply of mods. The new Quake will be a PC exclusive too. Half-life 1 is a PC exclusive too.

If I want to play Zelda, I'll play Zelda. On console.

Mods are bad, do not talk to me about mods.

Half-Life 1 is available on PS2, my friend. I own it.

My point here is that PC is objectively better, any other preferences are merely just that - preferences. Consoles are subjectively better, with maybe one clear advantage over PCs' and that is (besides price), split-screen.
Console gaming also has a certain authentic feeling to it. Like this is a machine MADE to play games, while a PC is machine that CAN play games.

You make all these concessions, but you still say PC is somehow "objectively" better.

In what way is it objectively better? The fact is, you just like it better. It's your preference.

hello camnator

hi [insert notoriously stupid user here]

>claims emulation is illegal
>then claims that there is legal and illegal emulation
>then says everyone should know he was talking about piracy the whole time

except none of those contradict each other in any way

>never even made this claim
>there is legal emulation and illegal emulation--pirating a ROM and playing it on emulating software is illegal, hence illegal emulation; this is no different from saying something like "illegal driving," because even though driving is not in and of itself illegal, there are circumstances in which it could be, like if you don't have a license
>you're missing brain cells if you didn't

basic english is hard

Quote from: Verbatim on March 27, 2017, 12:43:25 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on March 27, 2017, 12:29:31 PM

Quote from: LC on March 26, 2017, 08:57:48 PM

Quote from: gats on March 26, 2017, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LC on March 26, 2017, 02:22:38 PM

CEMU

Shieeet, does that actually work?

yes, last i heard they got BOTW working on it. it'll probably take a couple months for it to start running better on the PC than console

Pc has no games REEEEEEEEEEE

i mean, the idea that it even needs illegal emulators to play anything worth a singular shit to begin with is proof positive of its depressing dearth of games

emulation and emulators aren't illegal though

that's why i said illegal emulators

by doing this, i'm excluding all emulators that are legal

Quote from: Verbatim on March 27, 2017, 11:57:24 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on March 27, 2017, 11:30:07 AM

These are the top selling games sorted by reviews

http://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Reviews_DESC&filter=topsellers

If this is a small selection of good games, then you can't be reasoned with.

I'm not asking for "top-selling" games. I'm asking for good games.

That's why I sorted them again by user score

I don't care what the average fucking idiot thinks about some game. I care what I think about games.

90% of those games are dogshit.

The 10% that aren't are either not good enough or available on console.

You mentioned that the PC has a huge library but said you'd rather have a small library of good games. Wouldn't it be silly to not find a single PC exclusive in that huge irrelevant library that was good?

I'd rather have a large library of good games.

If such a thing existed on PC, I'd be happy to concede your point.

Let me rephrase, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Is anyone arguing their relevancy?

I don't purchase games based on how "relevant" they are and neither should anyone else.

Reminder: Just because a game doesn't interest you doesn't mean it's not good or not worthwhile.

But it does.

There is no objectivity here whatsoever.

How many years do you have to wait for a console game to match the Steam price? How many years does it have to be used to be as cheap as it is on Steam?

I found Dark Souls III for less than $20 within a year of its release.