The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Have you guys checked out the GameCube version of Resi? Okay - stupid question, but are the graphics great or are the graphics GREAT!
I say FANTASTICALLY GORGEOUS!!!
The character models look so soft, and the environments that they are placed in feel so smoky when you see the characters move into action. I use the term 'smoky' because that is just how the graphics look and feel in this game. The characters look extremely soft in texture, giving that inner-glow, with absolutely brilliant Anti-Alliasing effects.
I just know the GameCube is going to be a hit - even better than XBOX...on the graphics side of things, that is.
Although, after witnessing how the XBOX allows gamers to take control of their games by adding soundtracks of their own, including the idea of the built-in Hard Drive, it's highly impossible to show now respect to Microsoft at this point.
Only the games will tell. So far, the wonderful remake of Resident Evil for the GameCube has shocked me completely, not to mention the highly anticipated Rouge Leader by LucasArts.
I mean...I actually got the feeling that the graphics were part of the intro, only showing some detail in gameplay. Boy, was I in for treat! My eyes must have been deceiving me! I was witnessing, what was in fact the IN-GAME footage right before my eyes. The graphics for Resi and Star Wars look just as good, if not, better than the intro sequences of games for any other console to date. I know I may be exaggerating a little, but you have to admit, they are quite stunning.
To tell you the truth, and this may answer quite a few questions, too...It's mainly the developers choice. I always say this because it’s true if you think about it. If a developer like CAPCOM for instance, feels the need to create a game for a console that can push the power to the extreme, then why shouldn't they? Okay...you have Resident Evil for the PS2, and now you see it on the GameCube. What is the difference? Well...the PS2 version is a copy of the Dreamcast's, where the GameCube has created a whole new environment for the first instalment in the series. It's also a good idea to give newcomers to the world of a Resident Evil a taste of things to come, with a stunning 128-Bit version. Oh, I'm sorry, did I just say 128-Bit? What a terrible mistake that one was. The GameCube is far beyond any 128-Bit console. If anything, it looks between 128 and 256-Bit. That's how good CAPCOM have developed Resident Evil, and that's how wonderful the space battles seem in Star Wars: Rouge Leader. Anyway, coming back to it being the developer’s choice when it comes to games...it's 100% true. If Microsoft and Bungie were to develop Halo for the PS2 (please, please develop it), they could very easily have it done, and with the exact same performance as that of the XBOX. In my own opinion, it's not only what the console can do, but also how the game is created. I know it seems very complicated, and to me, this is one of the most annoying things to discuss. Not annoying in the sense of it being stupid, but in a way of it being difficult to explain. I just hope you all understand what I am trying to say here.
Of course, a console’s performance matters, but the processing power, the graphics card being used, the frequencies being taken on and the developers going into action won't mean anything without thought and pride into the games themselves. My point here is that it doesn't mean that just because the XBOX can push out 733Mhz of processing power with the use of a Pentium II, that it will create better graphics performance or speed to out-stand any other console on the market, or that it is capable of pushing more polygons on the screen, that it’s better than the PlayStation 2 or the GameCube; it merely ends up as being better in specification than anything else. Just because the XBOX can beat the PS2 on polygons or even everything (better way to put it), doesn’t state that the PS2 can’t handle the same games – this is where the developers come into play - It’s how the game’s developers develop the actual game to fit a particular console. If they were able to develop a game that’s played using the birds-eye view on the Atari so many years ago, they can sure as well create one near enough to a game like Halo on the XBOX for the PlayStation 2. At the end of the day, the GameCube, XBOX and PS2 all have fantastic specs, and all consist of great games to accompany them; seeing as how one console will beat another is not possible because each console has it’s day, and those days just keep on coming. Even though they say that this console or that console has this or that amount of processing power to it, or that it can push more polygons than any other console to date, doesn’t mean anything without having witnessed the games first-hand. Look at the back covers to your PC game boxes. If you search for the specs required to play the game, you will notice that they only need roughly 200Mhz of processing power and a 64MB graphics card. So when a console has 733Mhz or 400Mhz, remember that they both work well for any game. I personally think it's all a trend, really. Obviously, Microsoft have created a console with a very high performance so there is no slowdown when the Hard Drive is being used, in order for games to take advantage of the customised soundtrack option. But still, advertising a console with such great performance is not needed - As long as the games are good and the console can handle them, any true gamer will be interested in it. All this Mhz, Pentium, DVD playback and HDD stuff is all about advertising. Sure...it's nice to have a console that does everything, and I am very happy that Microsoft has brought it out into the open, but they hardly need a spec so great as that.
Back to the polygons and performance of consoles...
Take Resident Evil for the GameCube as an example. Now, I have already mentioned how spectacular it looks, right? Well, why do you suppose the graphics are far more incredible than most games on the XBOX? The GameCube doesn’t have even half, no…make that a quarter of the polygons performance as that of the XBOX, so why is it so good? It’s simply because CAPCOM decided it to be. Look at the PS2 now…Sony’s console is nothing more than 75 Million Polygons on-screen, right? Wrong! It can be far more if a company were to create a game that uses the console’s full potential. Taking a bit from here, and adding a bit to there makes all the difference to the naked eye.
Oh man…would you just listen to me…
I planned this topic as a small discussion for the visuals of Resident Evil for the GameCube, and look how far it’s gone into such detail. My apologies for that – I honestly didn’t mean to go on and on about the polygon part at all- sorry. I know you must have been bored reading it. However, I hope you all enjoyed reading it, as I hardly ever make topics of my own, but wish to in the future.
So anyway…this may all be very old news to everyone, but I have been waiting a while to mention it, and now that I have...I'm glad.
Thanks.
I say FANTASTICALLY GORGEOUS!!!
The character models look so soft, and the environments that they are placed in feel so smoky when you see the characters move into action. I use the term 'smoky' because that is just how the graphics look and feel in this game. The characters look extremely soft in texture, giving that inner-glow, with absolutely brilliant Anti-Alliasing effects.
I just know the GameCube is going to be a hit - even better than XBOX...on the graphics side of things, that is.
Although, after witnessing how the XBOX allows gamers to take control of their games by adding soundtracks of their own, including the idea of the built-in Hard Drive, it's highly impossible to show now respect to Microsoft at this point.
Only the games will tell. So far, the wonderful remake of Resident Evil for the GameCube has shocked me completely, not to mention the highly anticipated Rouge Leader by LucasArts.
I mean...I actually got the feeling that the graphics were part of the intro, only showing some detail in gameplay. Boy, was I in for treat! My eyes must have been deceiving me! I was witnessing, what was in fact the IN-GAME footage right before my eyes. The graphics for Resi and Star Wars look just as good, if not, better than the intro sequences of games for any other console to date. I know I may be exaggerating a little, but you have to admit, they are quite stunning.
To tell you the truth, and this may answer quite a few questions, too...It's mainly the developers choice. I always say this because it’s true if you think about it. If a developer like CAPCOM for instance, feels the need to create a game for a console that can push the power to the extreme, then why shouldn't they? Okay...you have Resident Evil for the PS2, and now you see it on the GameCube. What is the difference? Well...the PS2 version is a copy of the Dreamcast's, where the GameCube has created a whole new environment for the first instalment in the series. It's also a good idea to give newcomers to the world of a Resident Evil a taste of things to come, with a stunning 128-Bit version. Oh, I'm sorry, did I just say 128-Bit? What a terrible mistake that one was. The GameCube is far beyond any 128-Bit console. If anything, it looks between 128 and 256-Bit. That's how good CAPCOM have developed Resident Evil, and that's how wonderful the space battles seem in Star Wars: Rouge Leader. Anyway, coming back to it being the developer’s choice when it comes to games...it's 100% true. If Microsoft and Bungie were to develop Halo for the PS2 (please, please develop it), they could very easily have it done, and with the exact same performance as that of the XBOX. In my own opinion, it's not only what the console can do, but also how the game is created. I know it seems very complicated, and to me, this is one of the most annoying things to discuss. Not annoying in the sense of it being stupid, but in a way of it being difficult to explain. I just hope you all understand what I am trying to say here.
Of course, a console’s performance matters, but the processing power, the graphics card being used, the frequencies being taken on and the developers going into action won't mean anything without thought and pride into the games themselves. My point here is that it doesn't mean that just because the XBOX can push out 733Mhz of processing power with the use of a Pentium II, that it will create better graphics performance or speed to out-stand any other console on the market, or that it is capable of pushing more polygons on the screen, that it’s better than the PlayStation 2 or the GameCube; it merely ends up as being better in specification than anything else. Just because the XBOX can beat the PS2 on polygons or even everything (better way to put it), doesn’t state that the PS2 can’t handle the same games – this is where the developers come into play - It’s how the game’s developers develop the actual game to fit a particular console. If they were able to develop a game that’s played using the birds-eye view on the Atari so many years ago, they can sure as well create one near enough to a game like Halo on the XBOX for the PlayStation 2. At the end of the day, the GameCube, XBOX and PS2 all have fantastic specs, and all consist of great games to accompany them; seeing as how one console will beat another is not possible because each console has it’s day, and those days just keep on coming. Even though they say that this console or that console has this or that amount of processing power to it, or that it can push more polygons than any other console to date, doesn’t mean anything without having witnessed the games first-hand. Look at the back covers to your PC game boxes. If you search for the specs required to play the game, you will notice that they only need roughly 200Mhz of processing power and a 64MB graphics card. So when a console has 733Mhz or 400Mhz, remember that they both work well for any game. I personally think it's all a trend, really. Obviously, Microsoft have created a console with a very high performance so there is no slowdown when the Hard Drive is being used, in order for games to take advantage of the customised soundtrack option. But still, advertising a console with such great performance is not needed - As long as the games are good and the console can handle them, any true gamer will be interested in it. All this Mhz, Pentium, DVD playback and HDD stuff is all about advertising. Sure...it's nice to have a console that does everything, and I am very happy that Microsoft has brought it out into the open, but they hardly need a spec so great as that.
Back to the polygons and performance of consoles...
Take Resident Evil for the GameCube as an example. Now, I have already mentioned how spectacular it looks, right? Well, why do you suppose the graphics are far more incredible than most games on the XBOX? The GameCube doesn’t have even half, no…make that a quarter of the polygons performance as that of the XBOX, so why is it so good? It’s simply because CAPCOM decided it to be. Look at the PS2 now…Sony’s console is nothing more than 75 Million Polygons on-screen, right? Wrong! It can be far more if a company were to create a game that uses the console’s full potential. Taking a bit from here, and adding a bit to there makes all the difference to the naked eye.
Oh man…would you just listen to me…
I planned this topic as a small discussion for the visuals of Resident Evil for the GameCube, and look how far it’s gone into such detail. My apologies for that – I honestly didn’t mean to go on and on about the polygon part at all- sorry. I know you must have been bored reading it. However, I hope you all enjoyed reading it, as I hardly ever make topics of my own, but wish to in the future.
So anyway…this may all be very old news to everyone, but I have been waiting a while to mention it, and now that I have...I'm glad.
Thanks.
Have you guys checked out the GameCube version of Resi? Okay - stupid question, but are the graphics great or are the graphics GREAT!
I say FANTASTICALLY GORGEOUS!!!
The character models look so soft, and the environments that they are placed in feel so smoky when you see the characters move into action. I use the term 'smoky' because that is just how the graphics look and feel in this game. The characters look extremely soft in texture, giving that inner-glow, with absolutely brilliant Anti-Alliasing effects.
I just know the GameCube is going to be a hit - even better than XBOX...on the graphics side of things, that is.
Although, after witnessing how the XBOX allows gamers to take control of their games by adding soundtracks of their own, including the idea of the built-in Hard Drive, it's highly impossible to show now respect to Microsoft at this point.
Only the games will tell. So far, the wonderful remake of Resident Evil for the GameCube has shocked me completely, not to mention the highly anticipated Rouge Leader by LucasArts.
I mean...I actually got the feeling that the graphics were part of the intro, only showing some detail in gameplay. Boy, was I in for treat! My eyes must have been deceiving me! I was witnessing, what was in fact the IN-GAME footage right before my eyes. The graphics for Resi and Star Wars look just as good, if not, better than the intro sequences of games for any other console to date. I know I may be exaggerating a little, but you have to admit, they are quite stunning.
To tell you the truth, and this may answer quite a few questions, too...It's mainly the developers choice. I always say this because it’s true if you think about it. If a developer like CAPCOM for instance, feels the need to create a game for a console that can push the power to the extreme, then why shouldn't they? Okay...you have Resident Evil for the PS2, and now you see it on the GameCube. What is the difference? Well...the PS2 version is a copy of the Dreamcast's, where the GameCube has created a whole new environment for the first instalment in the series. It's also a good idea to give newcomers to the world of a Resident Evil a taste of things to come, with a stunning 128-Bit version. Oh, I'm sorry, did I just say 128-Bit? What a terrible mistake that one was. The GameCube is far beyond any 128-Bit console. If anything, it looks between 128 and 256-Bit. That's how good CAPCOM have developed Resident Evil, and that's how wonderful the space battles seem in Star Wars: Rouge Leader. Anyway, coming back to it being the developer’s choice when it comes to games...it's 100% true. If Microsoft and Bungie were to develop Halo for the PS2 (please, please develop it), they could very easily have it done, and with the exact same performance as that of the XBOX. In my own opinion, it's not only what the console can do, but also how the game is created. I know it seems very complicated, and to me, this is one of the most annoying things to discuss. Not annoying in the sense of it being stupid, but in a way of it being difficult to explain. I just hope you all understand what I am trying to say here.
Of course, a console’s performance matters, but the processing power, the graphics card being used, the frequencies being taken on and the developers going into action won't mean anything without thought and pride into the games themselves. My point here is that it doesn't mean that just because the XBOX can push out 733Mhz of processing power with the use of a Pentium II, that it will create better graphics performance or speed to out-stand any other console on the market, or that it is capable of pushing more polygons on the screen, that it’s better than the PlayStation 2 or the GameCube; it merely ends up as being better in specification than anything else. Just because the XBOX can beat the PS2 on polygons or even everything (better way to put it), doesn’t state that the PS2 can’t handle the same games – this is where the developers come into play - It’s how the game’s developers develop the actual game to fit a particular console. If they were able to develop a game that’s played using the birds-eye view on the Atari so many years ago, they can sure as well create one near enough to a game like Halo on the XBOX for the PlayStation 2. At the end of the day, the GameCube, XBOX and PS2 all have fantastic specs, and all consist of great games to accompany them; seeing as how one console will beat another is not possible because each console has it’s day, and those days just keep on coming. Even though they say that this console or that console has this or that amount of processing power to it, or that it can push more polygons than any other console to date, doesn’t mean anything without having witnessed the games first-hand. Look at the back covers to your PC game boxes. If you search for the specs required to play the game, you will notice that they only need roughly 200Mhz of processing power and a 64MB graphics card. So when a console has 733Mhz or 400Mhz, remember that they both work well for any game. I personally think it's all a trend, really. Obviously, Microsoft have created a console with a very high performance so there is no slowdown when the Hard Drive is being used, in order for games to take advantage of the customised soundtrack option. But still, advertising a console with such great performance is not needed - As long as the games are good and the console can handle them, any true gamer will be interested in it. All this Mhz, Pentium, DVD playback and HDD stuff is all about advertising. Sure...it's nice to have a console that does everything, and I am very happy that Microsoft has brought it out into the open, but they hardly need a spec so great as that.
Back to the polygons and performance of consoles...
Take Resident Evil for the GameCube as an example. Now, I have already mentioned how spectacular it looks, right? Well, why do you suppose the graphics are far more incredible than most games on the XBOX? The GameCube doesn’t have even half, no…make that a quarter of the polygons performance as that of the XBOX, so why is it so good? It’s simply because CAPCOM decided it to be. Look at the PS2 now…Sony’s console is nothing more than 75 Million Polygons on-screen, right? Wrong! It can be far more if a company were to create a game that uses the console’s full potential. Taking a bit from here, and adding a bit to there makes all the difference to the naked eye.
Oh man…would you just listen to me…
I planned this topic as a small discussion for the visuals of Resident Evil for the GameCube, and look how far it’s gone into such detail. My apologies for that – I honestly didn’t mean to go on and on about the polygon part at all- sorry. I know you must have been bored reading it. However, I hope you all enjoyed reading it, as I hardly ever make topics of my own, but wish to in the future.
So anyway…this may all be very old news to everyone, but I have been waiting a while to mention it, and now that I have...I'm glad.
Thanks.
I say FANTASTICALLY GORGEOUS!!!
The character models look so soft, and the environments that they are placed in feel so smoky when you see the characters move into action. I use the term 'smoky' because that is just how the graphics look and feel in this game. The characters look extremely soft in texture, giving that inner-glow, with absolutely brilliant Anti-Alliasing effects.
I just know the GameCube is going to be a hit - even better than XBOX...on the graphics side of things, that is.
Although, after witnessing how the XBOX allows gamers to take control of their games by adding soundtracks of their own, including the idea of the built-in Hard Drive, it's highly impossible to show now respect to Microsoft at this point.
Only the games will tell. So far, the wonderful remake of Resident Evil for the GameCube has shocked me completely, not to mention the highly anticipated Rouge Leader by LucasArts.
I mean...I actually got the feeling that the graphics were part of the intro, only showing some detail in gameplay. Boy, was I in for treat! My eyes must have been deceiving me! I was witnessing, what was in fact the IN-GAME footage right before my eyes. The graphics for Resi and Star Wars look just as good, if not, better than the intro sequences of games for any other console to date. I know I may be exaggerating a little, but you have to admit, they are quite stunning.
To tell you the truth, and this may answer quite a few questions, too...It's mainly the developers choice. I always say this because it’s true if you think about it. If a developer like CAPCOM for instance, feels the need to create a game for a console that can push the power to the extreme, then why shouldn't they? Okay...you have Resident Evil for the PS2, and now you see it on the GameCube. What is the difference? Well...the PS2 version is a copy of the Dreamcast's, where the GameCube has created a whole new environment for the first instalment in the series. It's also a good idea to give newcomers to the world of a Resident Evil a taste of things to come, with a stunning 128-Bit version. Oh, I'm sorry, did I just say 128-Bit? What a terrible mistake that one was. The GameCube is far beyond any 128-Bit console. If anything, it looks between 128 and 256-Bit. That's how good CAPCOM have developed Resident Evil, and that's how wonderful the space battles seem in Star Wars: Rouge Leader. Anyway, coming back to it being the developer’s choice when it comes to games...it's 100% true. If Microsoft and Bungie were to develop Halo for the PS2 (please, please develop it), they could very easily have it done, and with the exact same performance as that of the XBOX. In my own opinion, it's not only what the console can do, but also how the game is created. I know it seems very complicated, and to me, this is one of the most annoying things to discuss. Not annoying in the sense of it being stupid, but in a way of it being difficult to explain. I just hope you all understand what I am trying to say here.
Of course, a console’s performance matters, but the processing power, the graphics card being used, the frequencies being taken on and the developers going into action won't mean anything without thought and pride into the games themselves. My point here is that it doesn't mean that just because the XBOX can push out 733Mhz of processing power with the use of a Pentium II, that it will create better graphics performance or speed to out-stand any other console on the market, or that it is capable of pushing more polygons on the screen, that it’s better than the PlayStation 2 or the GameCube; it merely ends up as being better in specification than anything else. Just because the XBOX can beat the PS2 on polygons or even everything (better way to put it), doesn’t state that the PS2 can’t handle the same games – this is where the developers come into play - It’s how the game’s developers develop the actual game to fit a particular console. If they were able to develop a game that’s played using the birds-eye view on the Atari so many years ago, they can sure as well create one near enough to a game like Halo on the XBOX for the PlayStation 2. At the end of the day, the GameCube, XBOX and PS2 all have fantastic specs, and all consist of great games to accompany them; seeing as how one console will beat another is not possible because each console has it’s day, and those days just keep on coming. Even though they say that this console or that console has this or that amount of processing power to it, or that it can push more polygons than any other console to date, doesn’t mean anything without having witnessed the games first-hand. Look at the back covers to your PC game boxes. If you search for the specs required to play the game, you will notice that they only need roughly 200Mhz of processing power and a 64MB graphics card. So when a console has 733Mhz or 400Mhz, remember that they both work well for any game. I personally think it's all a trend, really. Obviously, Microsoft have created a console with a very high performance so there is no slowdown when the Hard Drive is being used, in order for games to take advantage of the customised soundtrack option. But still, advertising a console with such great performance is not needed - As long as the games are good and the console can handle them, any true gamer will be interested in it. All this Mhz, Pentium, DVD playback and HDD stuff is all about advertising. Sure...it's nice to have a console that does everything, and I am very happy that Microsoft has brought it out into the open, but they hardly need a spec so great as that.
Back to the polygons and performance of consoles...
Take Resident Evil for the GameCube as an example. Now, I have already mentioned how spectacular it looks, right? Well, why do you suppose the graphics are far more incredible than most games on the XBOX? The GameCube doesn’t have even half, no…make that a quarter of the polygons performance as that of the XBOX, so why is it so good? It’s simply because CAPCOM decided it to be. Look at the PS2 now…Sony’s console is nothing more than 75 Million Polygons on-screen, right? Wrong! It can be far more if a company were to create a game that uses the console’s full potential. Taking a bit from here, and adding a bit to there makes all the difference to the naked eye.
Oh man…would you just listen to me…
I planned this topic as a small discussion for the visuals of Resident Evil for the GameCube, and look how far it’s gone into such detail. My apologies for that – I honestly didn’t mean to go on and on about the polygon part at all- sorry. I know you must have been bored reading it. However, I hope you all enjoyed reading it, as I hardly ever make topics of my own, but wish to in the future.
So anyway…this may all be very old news to everyone, but I have been waiting a while to mention it, and now that I have...I'm glad.
Thanks.
After saying the following, I doubt I would stand a chance anymore of winning for a topic on GAD: But...
Is it because I am still a 'newbie' that nobody wishes to reply to this topic (no rude replies, please), or is it because it's too long?
If both, then I really need to learn how to make decent topics in the future.
Sorry everyone - I am quite curious. Please understand that.
Is it because I am still a 'newbie' that nobody wishes to reply to this topic (no rude replies, please), or is it because it's too long?
If both, then I really need to learn how to make decent topics in the future.
Sorry everyone - I am quite curious. Please understand that.
I think it is because you haven't really mentioned anything we can reply too as everything you wrote most people already know or have read somewhere else and made a post or read replies about it. Just because people don't reply dosn't mean they haven't read it.
It's nothing to do with the fact you're a noob. SR isn't elitist, people reply to posts no matter who made them.
But I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing (others will, I'm just lazy).
But I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing (others will, I'm just lazy).
Please now that I really do appreciate what you guys are saying, and what you said AliBoy is entirely true. Your reply as well, swander87.
It's just that this could well-be the best topic I have made. Well, considering I hardly make any topics, that is.
But still, it would be a privilege to win a GAD for once on the forums.
Special Reserve, please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I deserve one; it's only that I feel very happy and also very lucky whenever I contribute to the site. But then again...everyone does, right?
Win or lose - I would just have to wait and see...
Someone once told me that you don't win, but it doesn’t mean that you lose, either - a very good point.
It's just that this could well-be the best topic I have made. Well, considering I hardly make any topics, that is.
But still, it would be a privilege to win a GAD for once on the forums.
Special Reserve, please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I deserve one; it's only that I feel very happy and also very lucky whenever I contribute to the site. But then again...everyone does, right?
Win or lose - I would just have to wait and see...
Someone once told me that you don't win, but it doesn’t mean that you lose, either - a very good point.
Lots of people come on to this site hoping to win games, and they spend hours preparing topics and writing them, and then they don't win. Maybe it's not their fault, the topic could be excellent and they just had the misfortune to post it on the one day that someone wrote something better. But that's not the point. The point is they *tried* to win. And if you try and fail it's disappointing. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here Mr.Ninja but I'd bet you'd be disappointed if you weren't on that winners list tomorrow, or whenever Snuggles gets round to updating it.
There's away to avoid that disappointment and increase your pleasure threshold... post for fun. These forums are great, full of great people who are interesting, and some annoying ones but we'll let them slip by for the time being. If you post for fun then who cares if you don't win? If you've enjoyed writing something and replying to it then that's satisfaction enough. If you win then it's a really pleasant surprise. It's happened to me before. I posted a topic all about a band called the Eels in the movies and music forum when there was a filmaday prize for that forum, and I did it for fun. I won and I was shocked and surprised because I hadn't even tried.
In fact you probably write better if you write for fun, because you're writing about something that interests you. I get my kicks from films mainly, and if I can convince someone to watch "Barton Fink" or "12 Angry Men" then that makes me happy. If I win then great, if I don't then it doesn't bother me.
I wouldn't worry about people not replying affecting your chances of winning. If you write the best topic on the day then you will win GAD no matter how many or how few people have replied. I posted a review of a film called "Girlfight", no-one's replied to it to this date, but it won a GAD, or a FAD as it was then. Snuggly really does read everything.
This means that the key to you winning and also the key to people replying, is to write fluently and fluidly. If I get bored halfway down your post then the chances are the other people will as well. Making a readable post is not just about the quality of the writing, it's also about the way you set it out on the page. I see in your post that you have one all mighty big paragraph in the middle. Solid text. That is difficult to read and daunting to behold; it probably put people off reading your post. So the key to writing a reply-worthy topic is really in making the post as readable as possible, after all we all have short attention spans because we play too many video games :-)
If you want some ideas about writing fluidly go and read some of Goatboy's topics, or Meka Dragon's, or Grix Thraves'. They write in an easy to digest style, and so they get a lot of replies. They've also built up a name for themselves and that does count for a lot. If you post on a regular basis for a long period of time then people get to know you and they get to know whether you write interesting posts. If you do then they're more likely to click into one of our topics. If they go into your opic and you keep them there with a good post then they'll probably reply.
That's all I have to say about that, to quote Forrest Gump.
There's away to avoid that disappointment and increase your pleasure threshold... post for fun. These forums are great, full of great people who are interesting, and some annoying ones but we'll let them slip by for the time being. If you post for fun then who cares if you don't win? If you've enjoyed writing something and replying to it then that's satisfaction enough. If you win then it's a really pleasant surprise. It's happened to me before. I posted a topic all about a band called the Eels in the movies and music forum when there was a filmaday prize for that forum, and I did it for fun. I won and I was shocked and surprised because I hadn't even tried.
In fact you probably write better if you write for fun, because you're writing about something that interests you. I get my kicks from films mainly, and if I can convince someone to watch "Barton Fink" or "12 Angry Men" then that makes me happy. If I win then great, if I don't then it doesn't bother me.
I wouldn't worry about people not replying affecting your chances of winning. If you write the best topic on the day then you will win GAD no matter how many or how few people have replied. I posted a review of a film called "Girlfight", no-one's replied to it to this date, but it won a GAD, or a FAD as it was then. Snuggly really does read everything.
This means that the key to you winning and also the key to people replying, is to write fluently and fluidly. If I get bored halfway down your post then the chances are the other people will as well. Making a readable post is not just about the quality of the writing, it's also about the way you set it out on the page. I see in your post that you have one all mighty big paragraph in the middle. Solid text. That is difficult to read and daunting to behold; it probably put people off reading your post. So the key to writing a reply-worthy topic is really in making the post as readable as possible, after all we all have short attention spans because we play too many video games :-)
If you want some ideas about writing fluidly go and read some of Goatboy's topics, or Meka Dragon's, or Grix Thraves'. They write in an easy to digest style, and so they get a lot of replies. They've also built up a name for themselves and that does count for a lot. If you post on a regular basis for a long period of time then people get to know you and they get to know whether you write interesting posts. If you do then they're more likely to click into one of our topics. If they go into your opic and you keep them there with a good post then they'll probably reply.
That's all I have to say about that, to quote Forrest Gump.
I have to admit Mr.Happy, that what you mentioned does help me out a lot. And what you said about posting for fun does make quite a good point. I do in fact, sometimes feel that when posting for fun always gets the best words out of me.
I seem to express myself better that way - so what you said about that, I totally agree with 100%, not to metnion the other things you talked about.
Thanks for the help Mr.Happy - you certainly seem like someone I can talk to at the forums - and that of course, goes for many other GAD members, too.
I seem to express myself better that way - so what you said about that, I totally agree with 100%, not to metnion the other things you talked about.
Thanks for the help Mr.Happy - you certainly seem like someone I can talk to at the forums - and that of course, goes for many other GAD members, too.
Hey Ninja,
Youve already won a GAD in the ?? something days youve been here.Just be happy for that.
Theres people on here that deserve to win and they still havent after hundreds of days.
Ive not won yet but im not bothered.
Take Mr.Happy's advice and follow it.
Youve already won a GAD in the ?? something days youve been here.Just be happy for that.
Theres people on here that deserve to win and they still havent after hundreds of days.
Ive not won yet but im not bothered.
Take Mr.Happy's advice and follow it.
I am, and I agree with you.
And I am more than thankful to SR, but I have never won on the forums, and I have not won for my latest reviews either, and my latest are my best ones, too.
My win was for my hints on WipeOut Fusion.
Even if I never win again, I would still be more than happy to know if it were in the top list of the day.
And I am more than thankful to SR, but I have never won on the forums, and I have not won for my latest reviews either, and my latest are my best ones, too.
My win was for my hints on WipeOut Fusion.
Even if I never win again, I would still be more than happy to know if it were in the top list of the day.
Well you just have to post something original and something what people will want to talk about.