Banjora Marxvile

Hey I havent talked with you in a while. How is tile creating going?

Stay tuned, I'll be updating it with chapters so it's always bumped up :D

It's up

Metro not being optional and the lack of start button killed it for me.

Windows 7 is brilliant. Windows 8. Naaaa. Windows XP was good for its time, but its just getting more horrendous now the more Microsoft patch it. It's just bloat now imho.

But it did introduce System Restore to Windows.

ME was awful.

533mhz processor, 64mb RAM, running Windows 98 SE then ME :L

We had a PC for 7 years that was made by Patriot.

Oh, that was on purpose, it was simply using an example as a definition. It was a poor choice of words, though.

I also agree about the categories, definitely true, it can be overrated/underrated by either critics or consumers (or both).

But I agree, I enjoyed this debate, too. But dang, you do read and write fast. My post definitely wasn't small, considering all the factors...geez. You're making me jealous.

Of course it does, the core gamer is swayed by "what's popular and what's not", and that also plays into what they think about the games, but I can't say that every game that is overlooked is underrated. Similarly, I'd agree that overlooked games can be overrated, because they still have a fanbase, even if the game itself is crappy, that much is true.

And yes, something can be overrated compared to something else, but I, like many others, don't use comparisons to determine if a game is good or not. I determine it by how good I think it is as game by itself. You don't need another game to determine if a game is overrated/underrated, you just need to have a good idea of what you consider is a good game (sure, that "idea" is formed from playing other games, but you're not comparing the games themselves, instead you're comparing the games' concepts, features, and what you take from the games subconsciously collectively to form your opinion on gaming as a whole, rather than seeing what the game does right relative to other games individually). You don't need to compare it to other games (though some people only do that), you just need the experience to determine what you personally believe makes a good game. Sure, I could say that one game is rated high and another game deserves that rating when the former game doesn't, but that doesn't determine which game is overrated and which is underrated; it can't, because the person who was thinking that was comparing two games, one they considered overrated and one they considered underrated, they decided that before they made the comparison. They decided that one game deserved a lower rating and one that deserved a higher rating first, then compared the two, nothing more than that. It's simply a comparison, not a determination which one is overrated or underrated (unless one person forms opinions through comparisons, in which case it is a determination). It really all depends on the person and how they form an opinion on something. (which is why I have a love-hate relationship with the subjective world we live in).

I don't think I ever said that they said it was bad, just worse than the person who is looking at the general consensus' (or critical, it's objective) opinion thinks it is. If I did say it, it was probably by accident, but it might have just been a poor choice of words.

Also, there was a 4 minute gap, but I didn't think you'd start reading it the moment I posted it, and then post a rather wholesome post yourself in that time, that would be a rather extreme prediction that I definitely wasn't ready to make.

One last thing. I don't think that it's really fair to say that something is underrated or overlooked if someone forms an opinion about something yet don't make it publicly known. I see what you're saying, people do indeed form an opinion about something when they decide to look it over, even if it's not their final or full opinion about the item in question, but I don't think it's really the right thing to count those that have not publicly voiced that opinion. I don't really think I can say what my opinion about this is because, really, I've never even thought about it, what I'm saying now is on the spot, so I don't really think I can back it up or reinforce it (it requires more pondering on my part, though I am grateful that you've raised this theory, it's something to think about).

Fair enough, I'd do the same, if I was going to a University. My holidays are lasting until early September, like you said... but I'll keep writing, no problem.

I see.. but summer is ending, man, isn't it?

Ahaha, well that's okay. I hope you'll continue it some time

Great! I'll be posting my FF tomorrow, seeing as I have the first 3 chapters done, and I'll be able to write the 4th when I reach it.

How's your LP going?

Hey, Banjo, how's it going?

But if you truly are going to say that the definitions themselves are subjective...well, I can't fight you on that, because it's true. "Language" is subjective, there's no "Official Dictionary of Meanings", one dictionary can say a word means one thing and another could say that that same word means something different, so even if I use the "less than literal, yet still by the book version of "underrated" and you don't...well, that's all there is to say. Pavlov is law, after all.

Though the speed of your response to my second to last response (and the subject matter of the response that I'm responding to now) has me wondering, did you actually read all of what I said 20 minutes ago?

So you are calling Pavlov. I still hold that "underrated" has little gray area, but since you say "no", like it's fact, it's pretty much the same as calling Pavlov, which I can't combat.

Pavlov is law, after all.

Underrated implies that people feel that "a game is bad" and that the one who's perspective it is coming from implies that it "deserves better". There's no real gray area there, it's a pretty defined definitively defined word in the sense, though it's completely based on subjectivity.

It is, after all, in the name "underrated", it's pretty self explanatory in that sense. You could call "Pavlov" and then I'd be forced to stop right there, because Pavlov is law.

Granted, overlooking is completely based on neutrality (though it doesn't always have to. Let's say some person goes to the gamestore looking for nothing in particular. Any game that they don't by, but considered at least a little, is "overlooked" in a more literal sense. Similarly, if a game isn't well known, but is good, would be considered overlooked in the sense that we are talking about. Generally Overlooked and Underrated can be synonymous because the latter generally doesn't get much fanfare, and thus it leads to less demand, leading to the former, which is how the confusion of "overlooked" and "underrated" most likely came about. Just because someone overlooks a game doesn't mean they don't like it, it just means that, from what they've seen (or from the little that they've played) they don't want to play it (more). At the same time, they can't have built a full opinion of the game, because that would spill into judgment, and that would spill into "overrated/underrated" subject matter.

"Games that people rate low or don't even give the chance because of the popularity of overlooked games" isn't completely what "underrated" is (that's more like "underrating"), that's called being shallow, or consumer/producer pressure in this case. Yeah, it's underrated, but it's also unjustifiable and just doing it because people say it's bad or don't know too much about it...that's pretty much called being shallow, lazy, or cracking under consumer/producer pressure, but that would definitely be included in my definition. Or it could be considered being a dick. "Underrated", as I said, has little gray area since it explains itself in two words that make up the compound word "underrated". It has nothing to do with popularity, but a game can be underrated because it's overlooked, and someone can rate a game low because it's overlooked, but overlooked games don't have to be underrated, because you have to look further into the reason that they're overlooked. Maybe they just had crappy advertising. Maybe they have crappy box art. Maybe the game looks boring through videos. Maybe it has a crappy name or an unjustifyably bad demo. That type of stuff turns people away, but they're not saying the game is crap because of that stuff, they're just not willing to go any further into the experience. Because of their neutrality on the game itself, it wouldn't be overrated or underrated, it would simply be overlooked (unless the people who did play the game thought it was better/worse than it actually was, then it could be both). One can exist without the other.

But they're not saying the game is bad, it would be considered overlooked because of their neutral input on the subject matter, and that neutrality doesn't really into underrated or overrated.

For instance, I'll use two passions of mine as an example. Phoenix Wright is underrated because it's a Text Based Point and Click Adventure Game, and people dump on it because "it's boring", despite the fact that they've barely played it or haven't played it at all. They acknowledge its existence and still dump on it because it's not "super actiony".

The Touhou Project, on the other hand, is a game that people praise for its gameplay and even more for its music, but there still aren't really that many people that know of its existence, and therefore, it's overlooked.