NATOOK'S PROFILE

author=Nightowl
@NOACCEPTANCE772 I have no absolute idea what's going over in that game. No offense, but it looks like it was made by a brainless 5-year old satanist high on every existing drug. The graphics are mixed and I can barely distinguish anything from the messy screenshots.

no offense but *insert extremely offensive comment without any helpful criticism*

author=kentona

author=PentagonBuddy
It took me a long time to see a difference between either version. Flip a coin to settle the matter? I think they both look quite fine!

It took me even longer to notice. (and there is no way I'm going to reveal the secret now!)

I concur, flip a coin. They are both excellent and you can't really go wrong with either and agonizing over it is a waste of time.

yeah, it took forever, with a line THAT unnoticeable, it doesn't matter, took me roughly ten-twelve round trips of scrolling to figure it out

author=Yellow Magic
why oh why am I so socially awkward
and more importantly why does it bother me so much
:(

your second question answers your first

redacted

author=Shinan
While you can pretty much play games from the 90s on any old machine the most recent games might not run. But through the streaming service they will.

Well, judging by the video posted earlier, it would lag but still remained playable. I understand that the big selling point was the ability to play high end games, but if they aren't streaming perfectly, that might be unattractive to some people. However, streaming dated games will always run perfectly, and the library is massive. That was my logic behind it. I don't consider it an advantage to play high end games if they aren't running perfectly.

You're also referring to PCs not being up to snuff, or if it's on a TV it costs $100 for the hardware to play it. Obviously consoles will be able to run games made for them, and since they come out every what, 5 years or so? they aren't that bad to buy. When I bought my 360 it was $400 (much cheaper now too), and lasting 5 years until a new console comes out, = $80 a year, whereas the OnLive monthly fee is $10 x 12 = $120 a year. Except, I get to keep my console. I still have to buy games, but I KEEP them. Or the other method where you just buy full passes for games, which still cost $5-$50 each. Then they won't be available later (Fear 2 said it was going to run out in 2013 at some point) so full passes aren't really forever. From my view, it's better to invest in a console that WILL run the games like they are meant to be played, that you can have forever. Granted, you probably won't play the same games over and over until you die, but there are plenty of times where I want to dust off an old game and play through it just for nostalgia/fun (which I know I'm not alone on)

Again, with the older massive library of games, you can play games that are much harder to come by, and run smooth. To each their own I suppose. The selling point of high end gaming is invalid if it's not perfect.