So this is a console...

Good. I'm glad we agree. If you don't like games where the sole source of difficulty comes from a lack of a proper camera angle, then you won't like "Naya's Quest". You won't like it because the game was made entirely out of a shitty camera.

I saw the letter that you're referencing. Your interpretation is a very biased one.

You're right, it's my opinion that the design is bad. But it is objective to say that the challenge of the game comes entirely from this camera's restrictions.

I never said the designer was pretentious. I implied that the game itself was pretentious. There's a difference. After all a smart person can say something stupid and visa versa.

Not quite. It is entirely objective to say that adding baseball bats to basketball disrupts the primary component of the game — putting the ball into the basket. It is also entirely objective to say that blackjack is a solved problem given sufficient knowledge of the deck.

Selection bias, nothing more.

NO ITS TOTALLY A FEATURE NOTHING BAD HAPPENED BETWEEN 1939 AND 1945

You're acting like I'm spamming in-game messages to you about how you should hate the game or something. But that's not what happened. You came to an open forum and you read someone's opinion, and you didn't agree. That's fine. Disregard my points and continue to enjoy your game — I promise I'll never stop you. …

So let me get this straight. I say that a game is pretentious and I try my best to explain why, and you respond "No, YOU'RE pretentious!"

That's a really good point. I went back and tried to play RE2 a year ago. It was my favorite RE game by far... but I couldn't play it anymore. Instead of being scared by the zombies and worried about what *that noise* was around the corner, I was constantly pissed off that even though my character was clearly…

No, I never said that. Games need rules — more precisely, games need rules that make the fun parts of the game more fun.

If you win your case, you usually make the other guy pay for your legal fees too. And just because I'm requesting a million dollars for a suit doesn't mean I can realistically get that. The only reason she'd be screwed is if she didn't have a case, because if she did, then she'd never pay a penny for anything —…

I don't object to restrictions and rules in games. That's dumb.

I got to the third level where you actually start understanding why you need to use the scanner doo-hicky. That's when I realized that if the game simply included a free-moving 3d camera then it would be beyond trivial.

That game where everyone makes their creatures into penises? Sounds about right.

Wow, now a designer has made an entire game out of a shitty camera. It's going to take days to scrape the pretentiousness off of my flesh.

The argument was always about what you'd need to "pop kids from a mile away". I'm saying that while *possible* with a .338 to hit maybe *one* stationary target from that far off, if you wanted to sit there and pick off targets over and over like is meant when you say pop kids from a mile away then you'd need a weapon…

No, it kicked no ass. But to be fair, had it flown, it was going to be armed with air-to-air tactical nuclear missiles. Now THAT could have kicked lots of ass.

Yeah, I misread his comment. The "M" would stand out more with some red.