[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"] How could I have figured that out? How am I to determine the intention of your post when you've clearly not articulated your thoughts in a manner that would be beneficial to the argument? Regardless, I took this to mean that he thought all Source games were the same, with the exception of a, and I quote, "new, dull, coat of paint over the same tired old frame." I took "frame" to mean the mechanics of the game. I replied with this:
[QUOTE="Drulx"]The "frame", I'm assuming, are the shooting and movement mechanics*. According tothislist, the only mechanical features built into the Source engine pertain only to AI. THE SOURCE ENGINE DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER MECHANICS IN A GAME THAT USES THE ENGINE. Any mechanical similarities in Valve games are because the games are all Valve games, to point out the obvious.
*If the "frame" isn't in reference to the shooting and movement mechanics, then what is it in reference to?Drulx
The link is to a Wiki that lists all of the Source engine's specs, including the mechanics aspect of the engine. It all pertained to AI behavior, and therefore could not affect the overall "frame" of the game. That was a logical conclusion to make, I thought.His final response:
I lost track of which side you're arguing for/against around halfway into reading the wall of text.You admit a lack of telepathic ability (an area in which I'm proud to say I'm very proficient), then you go ahead into a senseless rant about how Source games are not the same (the technical details of which escape me). Then you say the one thing that made sense: They feel the same because they're Valve games. It struck me not because of it's accuracy, but because IT'S THE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL THIS TIME.Making_Pudding
He attacks my post ("wall of text"), not understanding that I am not defending Valve, but the definitions of the word "engine" in the context of video games, and how engines relate to the games utilizing them, and the release schedule of Valve games (and ultimately a following statement, incorrectly stating that console gamers don't have to wait for long periods of time for a sequel to a game). I am not arguing for Valve, but those concepts, Making_Pudding.
The begining of his second paragraph calls my rant about the Source engine "senseless" (the technical details of which escape him), despite the fact that it arose from a logical conclusion regarding one of his own statements. He ends the paragraph stating that one of my points (that all of Valve's Source games play similarly because they're Valve games) was the point that he was making the whole time, despite the fact that he never said such a thing.
Christ almighty.
My sincere apologies. I mistook your former post as a wall of text when, in reality, it pales in comparison to this one. Is this your brilliant strategy for engaging in debates? Instead of using succint phrases, you decide to instead bore your opponent into submission by filling your sentences with 50-dollar words that, although accurate, only serve in the purpose of tiring your opponent out so that, by the time he has finished, he no longer cares to continue the debate.
Well, your strategy works.
I no longer care.
It may be of no consequence to you but, in my honest opinion, this is not only a cowardly way to debate, but a poor way to get your point across.
Is Palantas the only person that can properly debate here?
Log in to comment