From: mjbrown@lonestar.utsa.edu (Marc J. Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Will Street Fighter II kill Genesis?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:20:36 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1480@ecgcurly.UUCP> roy@ecgcurly.UUCP (Roy Kern) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.012039.25164@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, mjbrown@lonestar.utsa.edu (Marc J. Brown) writes (in response to what I wrote):
>
>>The point was that it didn't matter that EGM's cart was unfinished; it was
>>NEARLY so.   There are only spot details to stick in.
>
>That is the whole point.  How much is 'nearly so'?  How much more will get
>changed in the end?  That is my whole argument:  you don't know, you're just
>hoping it stays the way you saw it.  Which is fine.  But by "guaranteeing" it
>will be nearly identical, you are potentially misleading the public.

I'm misleading the public as much as would anything they either hear or read
about.  Misleading the public was not my objective... I was giving a review
with my own insight, because I thought that some people would like to know
more about it if they could (and by some E-mail I got, they did).

>>Stop resorting to the "final version."  I've already explained how they told
>>me that the gameplay was the same when it didn't slow down.
>
>Why should I?  How can you guarantee something if it doesn't exist?

Any review you ever see is in the same position as I, so you would think
they'd try their best to avoid providing interesting tidbits if there's a
chance it may be different upon official delivery, right?  No way.  Besides,
nobody paid me to do it, and like any magazine, they don't have to read it.

>>every technical detail I could dig up?  I say the gameplay will be identical
>>because there is absolutely NO reason why it shouldn't be.  If people don't
>
>What are you talking about?  There are lots of reasons why the gameplay
>might not be identical.  Anything is possible.  Anything.  They could clean
>house at Capcom and have some outsider come in and tell them to make it look
>more like a Mario game, etc...

Do you believe this?  It wouldn't increase the potential profit, that's for
certain :).

>>retaliation.  In short, you flamed me.  I responded, and now you and I are
>>carrying on a conversation which is more an argument than critic vs.
>>reviewer, because *I'm* the only one providing facts.
>
>Prove I flamed you.  You are providing *some* facts. However, you are
>extrapolating those facts to some guess work for the final product.  I'm not
>saying you are wrong, I'm saying you might be wrong.  I'm playing Devil's
>advocate.

If you reply to a message, and you  A) provide no useful info and  B) insult
the original poster (however indirect), this is a flame.  If the original
poster replies with a similarly insulting message, this is also a flame, but
a justified one.

>>Nothing in your argument suggests that you hope for the best with this port.
>>When you said you DID hope for the best, it was utterly contrary to everything
>>you argued for in your previous lines.
>
>Nothing in my arguments say I hope the port will be a bust.  Take any of my
>replies and include them at will and show me one quote where I say that I hope
>the cart will suck.  I'll give you another $100 for each quote.  So how is
>my "hope for the best" utterly contrary?  Did it ever occur to you that I
>might actually play SFII?  And that perhaps I too am looking forward to the
>port, but am not holding my breath after seeing some really terrible arcade
>conversions (see Lynx Cyberball) from a lot of different companies?

This is good.  But this still does not tell me why you decided to flame me. :)

>>>There are enough wretched games out there;
>>>why would I want to add another to the list?
>
>>You tell us.  Your standpoint on the subject is quite pessimism.
>
>My standpoint is "I'll believe it when I see it." and your telling me that
>that is the same as hoping another game will be wretched?

No... The fact that you instantly flamed someone who had some optimism
concerning SNES SF2 is what told me you didn't want it to be good.

>>Perhaps you should have made it clearer that you hoped it would turn out
>>okay... but then, that would have ended the conversation, right? :)
>
>No, that still does not negate my argument that you have no grounds for
>guaranteeing anything unless maybe you do work for Capcom.  Or you own
>Capcom, etc...
>
>This is my last post on this topic so as to alleviate the pain and suffering
>that all the netters out there are suffering by my typing fingertips.

I thought you had stopped long ago :).

>I think you have some understanding of where I'm coming from and that's
>good enough for me.  In the future try not to take every posting so
>seriously, especially if it's from me.  Hell, it could be worse:  did you
>see that flame by Anthony Chen on Rauser?

I think I skipped it... but I did read some really low cuts against him...
just what did he do?  I missed that too :).

>Roy.


-- 
| "Happy, happy - Joy joy!"  "I always use your steenky old leetter!"       ///|
| "Optimism begets disappointment."  "MODs are 100% Amiga!!  So there."    /// |
| "Which do you want?  Fast graphics & sound... or fast spreadsheets?" \\\///  |
| -Maruku Buranu   (Marc Brown)   mjbrown@lonestar.utsa.edu             \XX/   |
Newsgroups: rec.games.video