• Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

2014 Exclusives - WiiU

Turo602 said:
You see, now the whole story has changed. You see how one mistake can throw an entire point off?

How did you come to that conclusion? Please, elaborate.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I had forgotten that they were actually first party at the time. Doesn't alter the fact that they were kings.
 
Jay said:
You made it seem like since Sega is third party that makes them any less valued. First or third it doesn't change the fact they made gaming history.
Click to expand...

How exactly did I make it seem that way? First or third changes a lot when it comes to Sega. Calling them kings of third party is dead wrong because it refers to a time when Sega was mostly trash. Am I disputing any of their accolades? No, not once.

KennedyKiller said:
My apologies. I had forgotten that they were actually first party at the time. Doesn't alter the fact that they were kings.
Click to expand...

Kings? Hardly. Nintendo was still around, and holding up better than Sega. Then Playstation came in and gave Nintendo a run for its money. Sega was no longer a threat by then. They had plenty of great games, but nothing worthy of calling them kings of that era. Plenty of developers cranked out quality stuff, more so than today anyway.
 
Turo602 said:
How exactly did I make it seem that way? First or third changes a lot when it comes to Sega. Calling them kings of third party is dead wrong because it refers to a time when Sega was mostly trash. Am I disputing any of their accolades? No, not once.
Click to expand...
I never said they were kings. I said in the recent years even though they have declined it doesn't change the legacy that they once had and could possibly get back one day.
 
Turo602 said:
How exactly did I make it seem that way? First or third changes a lot when it comes to Sega. Calling them kings of third party is dead wrong because it refers to a time when Sega was mostly trash. Am I disputing any of their accolades? No, not once.



Kings? Hardly. Nintendo was still around, and holding up better than Sega. Then Playstation came in and gave Nintendo a run for its money. Sega was no longer a threat by then. They had plenty of great games, but nothing worthy of calling them kings of that era. Plenty of developers cranked out quality stuff, more so than today anyway.
Click to expand...
Jay said:
I never said they were kings. I said in the recent years even though they have declined it doesn't change the legacy that they once had and could possibly get back one day.
Click to expand...
Sales isn't what makes kings Turo. It's just what Jay said. Legacy. And Sega has left a legacy. All great kings, even if they didn't rule for very long, left a Legacy. Kind Tutt was a VERY minor king, but he left a legacy that no one alive will EVER forget.
 
Last edited:
Jay said:
I never said they were kings. I said in the recent years even though they have declined it doesn't change the legacy that they once had and could possibly get back one day.
Click to expand...

But the person I responded to, did. So why butt in with irrelevant 2 cents then? Again, when have I made any less of their accomplishments? You quote me out of context and expect me to respond accordingly? That doesn't make any sense. You're going off on your own tangent here.

KennedyKiller said:
Sales isn't what makes kings Turo. It's just what Jay said. Legacy. And Sega has left a legacy. All great kings, even if they didn't rule for very long, left a Legacy. Kind Tutt was a VERY minor king, but he left a legacy that no one alive will EVER forget.
Click to expand...

Quote me, when did I mention sales? Leaving a legacy doesn't make you a so called king. A king by definition is not synonymous with what Sega accomplished.
 
Turo602 said:
But the person I responded to, did. So why butt in with irrelevant 2 cents then? Again, when have I made any less of their accomplishments? You quote me out of context and expect me to respond accordingly? That doesn't make any sense. You're going off on your own tangent here.



Quote me, when did I mention sales? Leaving a legacy doesn't make you a so called king. A king by definition is not synonymous with what Sega accomplished.
Click to expand...

Turo602 said:
Kings? Hardly. Nintendo was still around, and holding up better than Sega. Then Playstation came in and gave Nintendo a run for its money. Sega was no longer a threat by then. They had plenty of great games, but nothing worthy of calling them kings of that era. Plenty of developers cranked out quality stuff, more so than today anyway.
Click to expand...
While you didn't use the word sales, this is what you were referring to. Because Sales is what would have made sega "Irrelevant"

Kings - the male ruler of an independent state, esp. one who inherits the position by right of birth.

So we can't use ANY video game companies with the title of "King" if you want to look at it as technically as you're trying to. Don't split hairs like that, because it doesn't help your case any. People use the term "Kings" to mean more than the literal meaning all the time. And I didn't say leaving behind a legacy makes you a king, I said a Great King will LEAVE a legacy, and Sega has. Whether you want to admit it or not, Sonic came out before you or I were even CONCEIVED and even today children across the world know his name...THAT is a Legacy. That is 3 generations identifying with ONE character. That is a legacy. Sonic spanning over 20 years and still just as popular a character as ever...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom