«

[xoopx]

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy+Aug 30 2005, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blood-Pigggy @ Aug 30 2005, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-xoopx@Aug 29 2005, 10:04 PM
how is it better than the original arcade version? you dont explain why.

Well, the entire rest of the review and the good score was my reasoning. [/b][/quote]
thats not reasoning, thats just a score and a review that hasnt got the reasons in it..

Yeah, that review was excellent.
I really enjoyed how you told me what the game Pac-Man was like. I mean, it's only a game so widely known and recognized that as of yet undiscovered tribes of people in the untamed wilds of Madagascar can tell you which ghost Blinky is.
How about the next time you preface a review with how much better a remake is of the classic version, you tell us what it is that makes it better and not go on about what the original was like for those few unfortunate luddites who have never played the game.

Also, as an aside, your writing style reminds me of Oscar Wylde: it's really, overwhelmingly gay.

[Sebatianos]

Oscar Wylde was gay???

Perkins: Oh, butch, Oscar.



Edmund: A big, bearded, bonking, butch Oscar. The terror of the ladies. 114

illegitamate children, world heavyweight boxing champion, and author

of the best-selling phamplet, "Why I Like To Do It With Girls".

Mattingburg had him sent down for being a whoopsie.

And sinse when is something wrong with being gay???

And if you must know the biggest improvement is the internal chronometer... this means that the game is fully compatible with your brand new PC with WinXP... You don't need to slow the processor down or anything... Also the maze design is somewhat better. As for the so called description of the original - this game is bassically the same - so I doubt he was telling you about the original game - I think he was describing this game!

That's all well and good, but if he claims that this version is "better than it's source material", he should probably go about telling us how, as opposed to just recapping the source material and completly dismissing his opening statement. I think it's fair to say we've all played Pac-Man and, perhaps more importantly, could find versions of it with a nominal amount of effort if we wanted to do so again, so for what reasons would I be tempted to play this one that, by his account, is exactly the same as any other?

Basically what I'm trying to say (and in reference to your post, Sebatianos) is that he didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.

Also, an internal clock, which is nothing more than an application designed to allow the basic game to be ran as it was intended, is not an improvement on the source material, it's a means to keep it exactly as it is. But hey, a slight alteration of the maze design...RAD!

[efthimios]

Originally posted by McMillan@Aug 31 2005, 04:56 PM
That's all well and good, but if he claims that this version is "better than it's source material", he should probably go about telling us how, as opposed to just recapping the source material and completly dismissing his opening statement. I think it's fair to say we've all played Pac-Man and, perhaps more importantly, could find versions of it with a nominal amount of effort if we wanted to do so again, so for what reasons would I be tempted to play this one that, by his account, is exactly the same as any other?

Basically what I'm trying to say (and in reference to your post, Sebatianos) is that he didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.

Also, an internal clock, which is nothing more than an application designed to allow the basic game to be ran as it was intended, is not an improvement on the source material, it's a means to keep it exactly as it is. But hey, a slight alteration of the maze design...RAD!

I think you are taking this way too seriously.
Don't forget that he is a young man and as most of boys in his age (or older ) have the view that things are as they see it, take it or leave it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of BP by a long shot, but give him some slack over this review.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by McMillan@Aug 31 2005, 06:56 PM
I think it's fair to say we've all played Pac-Man and, perhaps more importantly, could find versions of it with a nominal amount of effort if we wanted to do so again, so for what reasons would I be tempted to play this one that, by his account, is exactly the same as any other?

Well I would not agree with here. The original Pac-Man was made by a company that is protected by ESA. This means that unless a site has a specific privilege to host the game - you should not be able to get it (at least not the version for PC). And to buy this game second hand... if it's the real thing it's already a collector's item (it's almost a quater of a century old) and I would be very sceptical about it's condition... It would have to be on a PC booter disk and so on... Good luck finding it!

[Blood-Pigggy]

I find myself writing more like Harlan Ellison.

Which a sense of sadistic delight.
Oh since when do you judge someone's writing on a review for a video game?

[xoopx]

it just bothers me that people who didnt play the original pac man will play this p.c version thinking its better than the original.. for no other reason than because BP says so, but doesnt know why.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Listen.
If you're going to complain in this thread instead of discussing the game FINE.
But I'm not going to tolerate this, if you commence bashing me over some as stupid as a opinion I stated then you're going to have remember that I don't care.

And what the hell is this?

McMillan - "Yeah, that review was excellent.
I really enjoyed how you told me what the game Pac-Man was like. I mean, it's only a game so widely known and recognized that as of yet undiscovered tribes of people in the untamed wilds of Madagascar can tell you which ghost Blinky is.
How about the next time you preface a review with how much better a remake is of the classic version, you tell us what it is that makes it better and not go on about what the original was like for those few unfortunate luddites who have never played the game.

Also, as an aside, your writing style reminds me of Oscar Wylde: it's really, overwhelmingly gay."

Oh wow, it's straight flaming, maybe next time you can realize that a REVIEW IS SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN A GAME NOT TO DETAIL IT'S HISTORY OR GO ON ABOUT SOME STUPID OPINION THAT I MADE. The next time you decide to do some assinine thing like this, think about what a REVIEW is, it REVIEWS the game, oh god in heaven what is that? Then you give it's plusses and weak points.

If you can't figure out that, that was my opinion in the beggining, you sir are a anal ignoranus.

And eftihimos (I don't bother to spell his name right) seems to dislike me for no apparent reason. So stop, now, I've been tolerant of you so maybe you could give me some slack.

50% of you need manners and a more logical mind.
I wrote a freakin' book here.
I'm going to ignore and disregard anymore statements as I've made my point and this is all senseless arguing.

NOW DOES ANYONE WANT TO TALK ABOUT PC-MAN?

Listen up ****-jockey, because I'm going to make this as painfully simple as I can, so that someone such as yourself can understand.... so kindly put down your tenth can of Mountain Dew for the day and stop focusing on whatever pretty shiny object that's no doubt distracting you at the moment.

You said that this version is better than the original. You gave no evidence whatsoever as to what lead you to that conclusion.

That's it. It's a bad review because of that (and, to a lesser extent, your hackneyed writing).
You say that the review shouldn't have to explain some stupid opinion you put in it? Okay, then DON'T PUT THE STUPID OPINION IN THE REVIEW, IDIOT.

That's all. Now you can go back to playing with string or making funny faces in the mirror or whatever it is you do.

Oh, and to be on topic: PC Man is a great game that is great to play and it's great.