KAN remarked to me in a PM...

...linear gameplay kills replayability; helping game companies to make more money by producing sequels. Planned obsolence, anyone?

That's probably the biggest point that is getting lost in the argument here. Replayability means less profits through less ability to sell sequels.

However, many of the multiplayer games such as Battlefield DO retain the replayability, but they still sell sequels by improving things such as squad communication (they added built-in VoIP in BF2, etc). I've found more replayability in the mod Project Reality due to the singular nature of its combat--that is, it's absolutely crucial to work together not only as a squad but as a whole team to win. It's not necessarily the most talented team that wins a particular match but the one that is the most organized and actually has a strategic overview (a commander) who is directing squads not only to attack but to lay ambushes and set up defensive positions and perimeters. It also helps a lot if you have a good chopper pilot who is willing and able to insert strike teams behind enemy lines. This encourages teamwork between air, infantry, transport, armored, and headquarters elements.

The difference between PR and maybe what you're going for is the fact that it is multiplayer and relies on people not acting like idiots. In many ways I prefer single-player games that retain a lot of the dynamics of multiplayer, because an AI wingman will never peel off and go strafe cows or something.

Thom Holwerda from OSnews just posted an article on The Crippled World of Modern Gaming

I have already read that article and I have a few issues with it.

The writer mentions games like Commander Keen and The Seventh Guest as examples of games with good content, yet they both have little content or variety overall. 7th Guest is little more than a bunch of puzzle gmes interspersed with video while Keen is your basic, run of the mill platformer whose only real claim to fame was that it was the first successful outing of its genre on PC. Neither games offer much in terms of replayabiliy and their content is limited at best. Yes. it's true that he also mentions Metroid, which is a game that has quite a lot of variety in enemies and ways of completing screens, but it lacked variety of landscapes and once completed offered no real replay value either.

This constant warble that seems to come from players of modern games is really silly IMHO. Yes the old games are certainly good and yes I too love to play them, but I do not agree that modern games ALL lack content and I definitely disagree with the writer's view of Fallout 3. For a console RPG its far more detailed than most others of its ilk and furthermore if he wanted to have it more content friendly he should be playing it on PC where mods will extend its life. On the subject of 'killing the same super mutant 25 times in a row', I can only say that he obviously hasn't played many RPGs and certainly hasn't played the Fallout and Wasteland games at all, because that's de riguer mechanics for RPGs in general. More interesting though is that comment in of itself as it seems he played it too quiickly and didn't do anything more than quest. I have completed Fallout 3 TWICE and am playing it through again and I can say that this time around I've seen far more Enclave encounters than before and this time whilst wandering through DC I've even encountered Enslaved Deathclaws in cages which are controlled by enclave officers. I've even stolen a key from one of the officers and have had the fun of opening a few cages and freeing them whilst using a Stealth Boy. The ensuing Deathclaw Rebellion is rather fun to watch! I've had many funny and interesting random encounters that are different to that also. Open World RPGs are not about questing, that's just a mechanic to prevent inexperienced players from dying to quickly, they are about you vs the gameworld not you vs scripted quest X Y and Z. Similar criticisms were levelled at Morrowind and Oblivion too and usually by players who only quested.

On the subject of Bioshock I can say is that he fell prey to the dumbed down console experience where auto aim and stupid enemies are common problems. The only console FPS experiences that disprove that rule so far that I've played are Killswitch, Halo 2 and Black, every other console FPS I've encountered is auto aim central and almost always a poor cousin of its PC version.

It took me a lot longer on PC but I explored the world of Rapture quite a bit and played the game on its hardest setting. I regularly hacked three security bots to travel with me once I had the skills.

I sincerely disagree with his view (and many others) on Assassin's Creed. It actually does have some excellent gameplay but the mechanics are limited. Sort of like a dumbed down GTA Vice City. So much so that most people will have mastered most of them within the first half of the game and the rest is just a rinse repeat experience. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and it's a common meme of many games, but I certainly felt as if aspects of the game had been taken out and didn't much like all that great lead up to what amounted to pretty shallow gameplay.

His point about publishers I feel are mostly true but I think that tit bounce aspect has already passed, that was a much bigger drawcard in the XBOX days.

I thought modern games were bad, until I realised I just spent a year playing World of Warcraft almost solidly. Oops.

I don't think it's much more than nostalgia and selective memory of one's childhood/youth, frankly.

I can find games made in the past few years that are more than worthy of being called classics now. Sure there is the selection of awful games too, but that aspect of the industry is definitely nothing new.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck in the past with the old games until the end of time. They are there to look back at and enjoy again occasionally, but they are definitely not the be-all-end-all of gaming. It's a curious thing to see these people who can't enjoy anything new because of this extreme, blind elitism nostalgic nonsense.

While I cannot attest for anyone else, I can clear up a few points about my outlook. Yes, I like the older games, and mainly this is for the nostalgia of them. I never said, and don't intend to ever say, that we need to have games today that look & feel like those old ones. What I am saying is that the older games seem to show more originality than modern games. I can love the deep story and moral system of Ultima IV, without insisting on the clunky top down engine it is played in.

Also, there are modern games that are original and offer the depth that I love in the older games. However, its been my experience that they are in the minority. Just like there are older games that were also shallow & simple. However, they seem to be less prevalent then, than they are today. Just because I didn't like a particular game, does not mean that I consider it a bad game. So, I may not have cared that much for, say, Wasteland, however, from what I played of it before moving on, it was a deep and interesting game. Just not to my tastes. Also, even a shallow game can be enjoyable.

My, and I think others, desire is to see more modern game companies taking chances on original games. I would like to see more thought given to the plot of a story, instead of just slapping something together to show off the new bells & whistles they have come up with. Instead, and this is an opinion, I see more and more companies that want to just cash in on past successes without ever taking a chance with something new. If done right, sequels are great, but don't sink all your money into them.

Looks, it's really this simple. Twenty years ago computer gamng was still very new and extremely esoteric experience and so in the ensuing decades as it became more generally accepted as a form of entertainment it had to also become more genrefied and resultantly less original. This is the same as popular music, radio movies and television and there's nothing to be done about it. I mean, if we look with honest eyes on what the games industry has morphed into from what it used to be anyone would be able to see that this is true.

Back in 1980s nobody jumped up and down about the U Force, R.O.B, SEGA's 3D addon for Master System or other number of accessories for gaming they just accepted that niche markets had niche products and people were willing to pay whatever price they were sold at. These days it's no longer about niche at all but rather market segmentation expressed as niches and that's what happens when products and markets reach critical mass.

When a market reaches critical mass the succesful producers capitalise and the unsucessful or smaller producers try new ideas. The problem with the free market model is that in the critical mass stage the sucessful producers have most of the capital control of the market, so the smaller producers don't have much to work with and thus whatever is original may not even reach the market or worse still may be totally overshadowed by successful producers product. There are only so many buying customers in any one market and when a market reaches critical mass the buying customer's expectations are already served by what is already on offer, so the motivation to produce something new, with entirely different appeal just isn't there. This is why movies are sold in 3 picture deals and why so many games have so many sequels and offshoots. If you want things to be different in a free market system there's no use in talking about it, you need to vote with your wallet.

FeedingDragon wrote:

Also, there are modern games that are original and offer the depth that I love in the older games. However, its been my experience that they are in the minority. Just like there are older games that were also shallow & simple. However, they seem to be less prevalent then, than they are today.

Precisely, and this has also been my position from the very start. The article is full of bad examples (Fallout 3 and Bioshock are still refreshing products compared to the flood of generic FPS and RTS today), but the inaccuracy of the article still does not deny that most games today are generic and lacking innovation compared to the old ones.

dh4rm4 wrote:

These days it's no longer about niche at all but rather market segmentation expressed as niches and that's what happens when products and markets reach critical mass.

There is still a niche market comprised of people who play old games in DOSBOX, hunt for old games on eBay, or buy from GoG. For every thousand people who listen to Britney Spears clone or Tila Tequila clone, there are always one or two who rather listen to Buddha Bar or Télépopmusik. For every thousand audiences who enjoy Titanic, there are always the few who rather see Taste of Cherry. For every thousand gamers who are content with another generic FPS, there are always some who prefer to run DOSBOX to play Covert Action or Midwinter.

dh4rm4 wrote:

There are only so many buying customers in any one market and when a market reaches critical mass the buying customer's expectations are already served by what is already on offer, so the motivation to produce something new, with entirely different appeal just isn't there.

So you do admit that most games today are generic because gaming industry is playing it safe. Very well.

dh4rm4 wrote:

If you want things to be different in a free market system there's no use in talking about it, you need to vote with your wallet.

Only in a sense that opinions and/or arguments are useless. Seriously, this is not the first time I see 'talks are useless' excuse to defend Microsoft/DRM/record labels/Steam/Electronic Arts/etc. The problem with this kind of excuse is it overlooks the facts that: a) consumers who express their dissatisfaction either already voted with their dollars (like I did) or are likely to vote. b) we do not only live in free market, but also live in free speech where the consumers are fully entitled to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

KAN, seriously, grow up. The games market isn't ignoring you, you're just not the general demographic player. You're not a hardcore gamer, you're essentially a snob. Telepopmusik...I mean seriously man, you want a snob off on games or music, and trust me here, you're wading into waters that you'll not swim so easily through.

Accept what kind of gamer you are and be happy that there are companies which appeal to your kind of snobbery. GoG and GameTap have some of the old games you can waffle on about endlessly. You can even show new gamers these old games and shamefully prove them all wrong if they think that new games are better. But do me and some others a favour, don't assume your snobbery for correctness. It insultts all the hard work that game devs do in trying to bring good games on to the market.

As I said, vote with your wallet and if enough pseudo intellects and snobs buy enough old games then maybe, just maybe someone will make more modern games that you approve of.

Sheesh.

You know what a hardcore gamer is, don't you? The kind of gamer who bought each and every C64 game just to beat them. That's what a hardcore gamer has always been and that's what the hardcore crowd is now, nothing's changed in that regard. These types of gamers don't whine abt x feature missing or y story aspect or z lack of something. No, they just play a game to beat it and to post hidden whatevers on youtube, just as they sent in cheat listings and maps into Crash and ZZapp back in the 80s, in a never ending META GAME of Oneupsmanship. They are not snobs, they're gamers.

You just happen to be a snob who likes games.

Dh4, your description of a hardcore gamer is way off. Hardcore gamers want a totally immersive experience and definitely would complain about features that prevent that, where a non-hardcore gamer plays a game for lack of anything better to do, and would probably quit halfway through and watch a movie if the fancy struck them.

Also, in what way is KAN a snob? He's just expressing his tastes. He's not telling you not to buy new games.

No, no they don't. Hardcore gamers just play and complete whatever they can get their hands on. Limitations in design, implementation and storyline just do not bother them as much as people with 'taste' seem to assume. Casual gamers dont' complete games for the most part, as their idea of a game experience is something more like a quick burst of shooting, driving, gambling, bowling or anything that can be encapsualted in a short session.

KAN is a snob and not a hardcore gamer and the sooner he recognises the fact will be the sooner he will stop rubbing people like me the wrong way. There have always been snobs in any endeavour and they all act in a similar manner. They all cry about the fall of X compared to how it used to be in halcyon days. It's CRAP. Halcyon days are always an illusion of youth or don;t you remember all the shit games that used to be around in every generation, all the games that were almost carbon copies of each other and were still selling reasonably well. All of this, including this discussion topic, is really just an excuse to show off their taste in X and to snob about. The only reason why people are listening to these snobs a little more now is because we have the internet where subject matter for discussion becomes trendy and 'interesting' due to the rise of blog.

So this is how you classify most gamers:

Hardcore gamer: play tons of games all the way through and then move on to the next challenge without necessarily playing the game multiple times.

Casual gamer: play a game here and there, don't bother finishing them sometimes, and rarely play the same game multiple times.

What about the gamer that plays a single game multiple times? I play Battlefield 2 (and mods) and NBA 2K9, and once in a while play some Dosbox games. That's about the limit of what I play. I definitely am not a casual gamer, but by your definition I'm not a hardcore gamer either.

I guess I'd classify myself as a serious gamer with niche interests.

Back to the subject at hand: I don't think there's anything wrong with calling for better quality games and using older games as examples. Of course, in no way can you say that all modern games lack depth and creativity nor that all older games were deep and unique. There was definitely some experimentation and thought put into older games.

How about we all focus on a few things instead of flaming back and forth and making it personal (calling people snobs, etc)? Tell me if you agree/disagree and why. I'm open to changing my mind.

1. There are many great old games with depth and creativity
2. There are many great new games with depth and creativity
3. Many of the new games coming out lack creativity and attempt to compensate with bells and whistles
4. A higher percentage of old games had depth and creativity than new ones. (NOTE: this is probably the contention at hand, and is indeed the subject of the post, although the title is a little exaggerated)
5. There are elements of older games that are not fully utilized in modern games, such as the simple yet effective multiple-helicopter commands found in my favorite Dosbox game, Gunship 2000. I haven't found a modern heli game that really compares to that.
6. Console games are dumbed down compared to PC games, old and new.
7. The best games come when developers break out of genres and create something new. It's harder and harder to do nowadays but it can be done.

"A serious gamer with niche interests" is the very definition of a snob. Hardcore gamers are like hardcore drinkers, movie goers, golfers and whatever other pursuit you care to think of. They do it for the buzz, not for the critical analysis thereof. Just think about how you defined your playing roster, you play maybe a dozen or so games, only two of which are recent developments. The industry doesn't care about you because largely you don't bring income outside of the spare few games that appeal to your 'niche interests' and so you have to accept that. Yes, your heightened involvement in certain circles will generate some income in those circles (just as VOGONS or NMA may steer people toward GoG) because you may make those games which you do play regularly more appealing to those who don't play them but that scope is extremely limited at best.

Casual gamers do it for A buzz but not THE buzz, that's where the fundamental difference lies.

Why should a developer listen to niche players interests when it's highly unlikely that their input will result in a commercial success? It's a business and they sell product and until there's such a negative impact in their products that they are forced to listen they will just continue to do whatever makes them the most money. Such is the free market system.

So let me go through your points:-

1. There are indeed many old games with depth and creativity. There are also many old games which are shallow and lack any creative spark at all. Take some time to read old computer gaming mags like ZZapp and Crash and you'll see that the industry wasn't so different from what it is now at least in that regard. There were far more cheap and nasty games around than those which happened to be interesting and entertaining. Code Masters, who now run GameTap and made the Colin Macrae series, made their initial money by selling cheap knock offs of hit titles as budget games. RARE started out as ULTIMATE on the ZX Spectrum and while some of their games (Attic Attac) were clever many were just clones of other games. Budget and movie license games brought in the majority of game industrys income and most of the games made under those conditions were shallow, poorly implemented and basically SHIT. For every Wizball there were a million and 1 Galaga clones. For every Magic Scrolls adventure there were another hundred really poor adventure games. For every Aliens, there were two bazillion other movie licensed as poor if not worse than The Living Daylights. For every Lotus Esprit Turbo there were thousands of awful driving games. Honestly, it's really almost impossible to have a proper discussion about the past if you don't know much about it.

2. There are many great new games that build on the ideas of other great and poor games that came before them. The industry is in a cycle atm where revisionist theory is in place. This is the equivalent to the art history 'rennaissance', where many older ideas are being reattempted with new materials. Black Mesa Source is probably one of the better examples of this. While it's not a commercial endeavour, it shows that the desire is for the old ideas to implemented with modern panache. Oblivion, Morrowind, The Witcher, Fallout 3, the modern Conan games, World of Warcraft, Red Alert 3 and many others also are very much evidence of this renaissance period of computer gaming. The Portals etc of this time are not so much wholly new ideas but new aspects on older ideas.

3. Bells and Whistles are nothing new as selling points and I think you need to do a more detailed critical analysis of the games industry.

4. CRAP. See points 1 and 3.

5. You say that as if these things that you liked in older games should just somehow semi biologically migrate into the modern games which you find so shallow. If you want those features in modern games do something about, write an email I dunno, but don't complain about X feature with no solution.

6. Some console games are, especially when they are ports of PC games. It's also true that certain gametypes express themselves better on a console than on PC. Fighting games are one such example. Party games another.

7. I disagree. Some of the best games have been those that have mastered their genre.

Honestly, it's really almost impossible to have a proper discussion about the past if you don't know much about it.

It's hard to have a proper discussion when you have to be so caustic. Your points have validity but I'm not sure why you insist on throwing in personal jabs and sneering statements like the above.

I'll try to take the high road here and address your points and not make attacks on you personally.

"A serious gamer with niche interests" is the very definition of a snob.

I agree that I might not have much influence with gaming companies and thus really don't have much of a leg to stand on with my opinions, but disagree that it's the definition of a snob. Snob, to me, has a very negative connotation. I don't look down my nose at people who don't think like me, which to me would be snobby.[/quote]

But you do do look down on them and the industry developers who don't appeal to your niche interests. Have you read Portnoy's Complaint?

Games initially were developed by a small group of people and their main aim was to give out an enjoyable, new piece of gaming moments everytime.

It was the time of games revolution, where the (tech-accessible) population were treated to a new media of entertainment. Each game started defining it's own genre.

When Lemmings was out, some of us who were interested in this type of gaming, were awed by the simplicty of game design yet were extremely enjoyable and instantly addictive. It is an example of a really good game, before which no one ever thought saving some creatures from imminent death could be so much fun. All we did there was just intervene. It's an example of originality.

Back in those days, we were expecting the next Wing Commander from Origin, the next Ultima from Origin, the next AD&D RPG from SSI, the next Quest from Sierra and so on. The genre of games were flourishing. And we, I believe, most of us whom grew along with this development have intricately woven memories with the games of our growing era. It is a part of our nostalgic memories that wants us to stick to our older games.

This adherence to games, would have been maintained upto the current latest releases, if not for the fact of the turn the gaming industry in general is taking.

Gaming is now a multi-billion dollar industry. Other than some fan re-makes and some other freeware games, all retail games need to be published by the Electronic Entertainment Giants, like EA, Interplay, etc. All the Developers are under pressure from the publisher to release the game in time. Any delay will cause severe monetary loss for the developers and publishers.

And thanks to the flooding of patches nowadays, the publishers can convince the developers to "release it already, and you can give 'em the patches to fix their grudges later" attitude.

So these Giants want something that is famous amongst the population, and not care much of the originality and the fun factor. If a game can cause a person to say "wow" on his first impression seeing the screen the first few minutes, it's all the publishers want.

In current times, everyone wants the best looking game. Graphics take precedence over everything else. And once a game with a successful formula comes out, everyone rush to follow suit. Because this is where the income is.

The current games are also made to catch up with the latest technology. Before you can fully utilize the powers of your recently bought pc and the graphics card, the next game comes in and thrash all your hopes. And you too start hopping over the games to get the next best system to play it. Any idea, how much of technological advancement have gone to waste without fully utilizing it?

Crysis? Yeah, sure it's beautiful and with real world like physics and stuff, but how many actually get to enjoy it? It requires a hefty machine to make it run smooth with all the bells and whistles turned on. Shouldn't it be just a benchmark software to post the latest graphics card marks?

Why leave out so many gamers who love good games, by just making the most visually appealing, most-processing power demanding game, which even a current system can't cope well? And most of the games nowadays is just another 1st person shooter like thingy, though "different".

Don't get me wrong here. Beside my classic machines, I also maintain a mid-Win9X based machine and a contemporary quad-core based SLI system for current games. And I do like the new games too, Fallout3 being the latest one.
And I still like strolling in the woods in Oblivion.

But the classic games do have the charm on their own. You can see it in the graphics. You can hear it in the music. You can feel it in the Game.
It's like the first time you enjoyed the games. Still fresh in the memories!

dh4rm4 wrote:

KAN, seriously, grow up. The games market isn't ignoring you, you're just not the general demographic player. You're not a hardcore gamer, you're essentially a snob. Telepopmusik...I mean seriously man, you want a snob off on games or music, and trust me here, you're wading into waters that you'll not swim so easily through.

And blah-blah-blah and yadda yadda yadda. Got anything substansial to say, kid?

dh4rm4 wrote:

Accept what kind of gamer you are and be happy that there are companies which appeal to your kind of snobbery. GoG and GameTap have some of the old games you can waffle on about endlessly. You can even show new gamers these old games and shamefully prove them all wrong if they think that new games are better.

I am already happy and content with my games, idiot. However, just because I'm happy playing with my old games does NOT mean that I cannot call a crap a crap.

dh4rm4 wrote:

But do me and some others a favour, don't assume your snobbery for correctness.

Ah, I see. Moving the goalpost, aren't you? The issue here is whether gamers are entitled to express their dislike on new games, and you conveniently sidestep the issue and reaaaaaaally want switch the topic to "KAN's snobbery". That really shows your honesty and credibility, or the lack thereof.

dh4rm4 wrote:

It insultts all the hard work that game devs do in trying to bring good games on to the market.

BOOO FUCKING HOOO. Cry me a fucking river, kid. Game publishers are not making games for noble cause; they do it for money. Consequentially, there are always craps that make a lot of money. In fact, they are the majority.

Mind you, game publishers are completely entitled to create another clone or sequel that generates a lot of money. After all, they have all the rights to maximize their profits. However, people are also entitled to express their dislike as well. So again, cry me a fucking river, because I'm not impressed by your rethoric.

dh4rm4 wrote:

As I said, vote with your wallet and <more blah-blah about snobbery>

Which part of "like I did" you don't understand? Can't you read, or are you just plain dense?

dh4rm4 whines about people "coloring him stupid" in 3... 2... 1....

dh4rm4 wrote:

Sheesh.

Whoa! A 'sheesh'! Ooooh, I'm impressed!

The only person who's acting like a child and crying over the state of modern gaming is you KAN. Even the person who wrote the blog that you used as your ever weakening platform understands that his point of view is reflexive of someone who is no longer the main demographic. If he can bother to recognise his own point of view as limited, the only reason you can't is that you're an ego driven snob because you happen to believe you're opinion is more valid than anyone elses, especially those who oppose yours. What you call crap others call a fun experience and if you can't recognise that you're possibly wrong on your calls or maybe even a skewed in your perspective then you are most certainly and definitely a snob. And that's only part of the problem here because what really makes people like you more annoying than they already are is the fact that you tie your snobbery to some self held belief system that's built on denial and if anyone questions your point of view you try first to be their teacher (thereby denegrating their intelligence), then if that doesn't work you become belligerent and finally when that doesn't work you pull away your layers of nicety and reveal your true ugly self and act just as the egotistical prick that you really are.

I am also a snob but I have the decency to admit it to myself and I don't go around ruining everyone else's enjoyment by acting as if my opinion and taste defies theirs.

But hey, do whatever floats your boat and go on bleeting like some wounded sheep and bullying those who have the indencecy to disagree with you...'kid'.

dh4rm4 wrote:

The only person who's acting like a child and crying over the state of modern gaming is you KAN. Even the person who wrote the blog that you used as your ever weakening platform understands that his point of view is reflexive of someone who is no longer the main demographic.

And where did I claim to represent the main demographic? Ah, resorting to false accusation because you cannot rebuke my points, I see.

dh4rm4 wrote:

If he can bother to recognise his own point of view as limited,

I did admit that my views represent a minority, and in case you conveniently suffer from amnesia, it was the part you were using to accuse me a "snobbish niche gamer".

It is interesting to note that after making such accussation ("snobbish niche gamer"), now you accusse me of being unable to recognize that I'm no longer the main demographic. What an amazing consistency!

So much for your credibility, or the lack thereof.

dh4rm4 wrote:

the only reason you can't is that you're an ego driven snob

Ah, resorting to ad-hominem again, fucktard? I wouldn't be surprised if the reason behind your dishonest debating tactics and stupid persistance is because you're an industry-wanking capitalista.

dh4rm4 wrote:

because you happen to believe you're opinion is more valid than anyone elses, especially those who oppose yours.

WRONG. I have provided reasons and examples to support my arguments. You, on the other hand, conveniently keep moving the goalpost in each reply.

dh4rm4 wrote:

What you call crap others call a fun experience

The existence of people who are bored with FPS justifies the "crap" label, moron. And of course, you conveniently forget that I did admit the existence of fun FPS like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

dh4rm4 wrote:

and if you can't recognise that you're possibly wrong on your calls or maybe even a skewed in your perspective than you are most certainly and definitely a snob.

Unlike you, I actually back up my arguments. You, on the other hand, just keep making rethoric. Who is actually skewed in his perspective? Pot. Kettle. Black. Things.

dh4rm4 wrote:

And that's only part of the problem here because what really makes people like you more annoying than they already are is the fact that you tie your snobbery to some self held belief system that's built on denail and if anyone questions your point of view you try first to be their teacher

Yadda yadda yadda. More rethoric. It doesn't take a genius to see that I always back up my arguments with reasons and examples while you can only reply with ad-hominem, strawman, and rethoric. Your credibility is already down the gurgler.

dh4rm4 wrote:

(thereby denegrating their intelligence), then if that doesn't work you become belligerent and finally when that doesn't work you pull away your layers of nicety and reveal your true ugly self and act just as the egotistical prick that you really are.

BOOO FUCKING HOOO!! KAN IS MEAN!! KAN IS MEAN!!! WAAAAHH-WAAAAHHH!!!

The difference, idiot, is that I flame you while explaining the reasons why I do so, while you can only resort to.... rethoric. What a shock.

dh4rm4 wrote:

I am also a snob but I have the decency to admit it to myself and I don't go around ruining everyone else's enjoyment by acting as if my opinion and taste defies theirs.

Again, another unsupported rethoric. Why, I'm not surprised.

dh4rm4 wrote:

But hey, do whatever floats your boat and go on bleeting like some wounded sheep and bullying those who have the indencecy to disagree with you...'kid'.

I can hear you furiuosly pleasuring yourself even from here; got KY Jelly already?