racketboy.com

irixith wrote:

Hatta wrote:Dunno why I'm coming off as elitist.

No no no, I wasn't calling *you* elitist.

For example, almost immediately after my first post, "pepharytheworm" jumped on it with a "gamers who play retro games and not retro gamers" comment. That sort of snobby elitism almost always comes out in this sort of discussion. That whole "oh no, your choice is different than my choice, I must both defend my choice and insult you" thing comes out. It's boring, but also a form of snobbery that wasn't asked for.

Thats assuming I am calling myself a "retro gamer". I never try to make sure everyone knows how big or small my collection is. I post that in Gamerooms thread. My statement wasn't directed at you personally but all who only emulate retro games. If all we do is just state opinions without arguement or debates, how does a disscusion progress. Do you deny my statements that people who emulate do it for modern conveniece and because of the limitations of systems? Is not that why you emulate? Money is usually a factor too. If thinking people who only emulate on PCs aren't "retro gamers" but "people who like retro games" makes me an elitist then I guess I am. I guess whether or not I think I am better than anyone because of my opinions doesn't matter. I will also state again what I previously stated.

Now I do emulate to a point, to try things out or get translations, so I find nothing wrong with it as a personal choice. I would rather people emulate older games then not play them at all.

If anyone still thinks my comments were stating I was better than anyone I apologize

Limewater wrote:
This issue isn't really up for argument, or something to have an opinion about. That's like saying you have an opinion about whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a white man.

That's also like assuming what you or I say on here matters.

Bloody Disney and their perpetual copyright precedent. Expect Nintendo to keep renewing their franchises for another 500 years.

Sometimes it's just better getting an enhanced port of the game rather than emulating it. Monkey Island Special Editions, Rez HD and NiGHTS Ps2 come to mind.

flamepanther wrote:

Limewater wrote:This issue isn't really up for argument, or something to have an opinion about. That's like saying you have an opinion about whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a white man.

I think he was probably more of a pinkish beige color.

Thomas Jefferson was a martian.

All of TJ's kids weren't white though.

Pulsar_t wrote:Bloody Disney and their perpetual copyright precedent. Expect Nintendo to keep renewing their franchises for another 500 years.

I'm neither pro nor anti piracy however, it seems odd to say it's bad for a company to protect what they made or published.

That and when are we going to have an ornithological discussion?

Pulsar_t wrote:Bloody Disney and their perpetual copyright precedent. Expect Nintendo to keep renewing their franchises for another 500 years.

They've ignored a few. Unless they pull it out for DSiWare, Mole Mania will be the first Nintendo Franchise to become public domain.

I'm a purist, ports can be trouble enough sometimes, so I'll stick to the good old hardware

D.D.D. wrote:

Pulsar_t wrote:Bloody Disney and their perpetual copyright precedent. Expect Nintendo to keep renewing their franchises for another 500 years.

I'm neither pro nor anti piracy however, it seems odd to say it's bad for a company to protect what they made or published.

That and when are we going to have an ornithological discussion?

AmishSamurai wrote:They've ignored a few. Unless they pull it out for DSiWare, Mole Mania will be the first Nintendo Franchise to become public domain.

Actually, copyright doesn't work that way anymore, ever since the Berne Convention. Copyright in all member nations is automatic, and does not require registration or renewal. Trademark is an entirely separate issue, however.

D.D.D., it's not bad for a company to try to protect what they made or published, within reason. However, U.S. copyright law was established with limitations in mind from the beginning. The idea is to encourage creators to create by offering legal protection of their works on a temporary basis before passing into the public domain. However, the original intention was to do this for the sake of the public, not for the sake of the author. It is necessary for works to eventually become public domain so that these works truly benefit the public. If one person or company keeps eternal control of them, our culture of arts and sciences as a whole cannot freely build on them. The public domain advances our culture. What Disney has done is to effectively hijack U.S. copyright law, granting themselves far greater copyright terms than were ever intended. So...

1) Big corporation with more input into U.S. law than the public has: BAD
2) Lawyers and executives deliberately damaging cultural advancement due to greed: BAD
3) Ripple effect of other companies now taking advantage of hijacked copyright policies:
VERY, VERY BAD

Does it still seem so odd?

We still have threads like this?