SNES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16bitter

What is known is that at least one, possibly multiple Treasure members worked on CIV by his statement. As to how many or how in control any or a group of them were is up for debate.

---

That's my point. Your post before made an affirmation that the same team created the Contra series, made Castlevania IV, and then created Treasure. That's a bit of a leap from the interview you quoted where he states that one or more individuals in Treasure had worked on those games.

---

And I've stated that it could be wrong -- as well as showing where I got the idea. So your point is rather redundant, bordering on pointless then.

At the same time, you don't deal with how what Gamespot -- and other sources -- said, was at all proven inaccurate or "lazy".

Such an accusation seems to be lacking in any foundation from your side.

As I've said, the truth is in question here -- that does not mean that Treasure, or what would become a great deal of Treasure as a company, have been proven in any way not to have been behind CIV as you, and others, have been pretending is so obvious.

It's rather hypocritical to say this:

j_factor -- Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that Treasure was "the team" that did Castlevania IV.

And then complain that a claim is unsubstantiated, especially since I at least sourced the statement from my side multiple times.

You? Well, you're acting as if it's overt that Treasure wasn't behind the game when you have no way of knowing.

Your point about there being a question as to how many at Treasure worked on CIV goes both ways, and is only logical if you admit that it carries over to your side just as much as my opening statement on the matter.

Okay, this is getting really stupid now.

I'll just go ahead and post this
http://www.defunctgames.com/onrunnin.../feuds-52.php4

and this
http://www.defunctgames.com/onrunnin.../feuds-51.php4

They work, and provide evidence that the mainstream media is both fallible, suspect to vauge generelization, and suspect to pulling information out of their ass.
I only label them as 'evidence' since 'bitter will likely find some way to say that they prove nothing.

EDIT: Outdated, but illustrates a similar point
http://hooligansofthenight.com/index...article&sid=33
Behold. . .how Game Informer has no semblance of journalistic integrity

*Pops in head*

Holy shit! Seven pages of fanboy feuding!

Gilda, get the hose!

Wow 7 pages... last time i checked it was only 3.

Anyways I will share my thoughts on the subject. Around the time both systems had been out in stores for a while and I was a lot younger :P my parents gave me the choice of between the two systems for my birthday. At the time I was a mario fan. Mainly because I had a C64 with a mario game, NES with a few mario games and a gameboy. I told them to get me a genesis because it came with sonic 2. A few years later I tried to sell my genesis because I wanted the snes and listed it on ebay. Luckily no one bid on it and I kept it. I was hooked on sonic :P after that I went on to buy every sega system save the master system and every sonic game.

Both systems have their strong points and their weaknesses. We can argue on for 100 more pages. Nothing good will come from this. It is as pointless as the saturn vs ps1 debate. ;)

The funny thing is, only the first 2.3 pages concern the SNES vs Genesis.

It suddenly became about Super Castlevania IV,
My hatred of it,
My motives for attacking 16-bitter's fun-fact involving Treasure's connection to Cv IV,
The actual involvement of treasure,
Wether or not treasure existed as an entity prior to gunstar,
The validity of Credits,
The validity of whoever's information,
The nature of 'truth',
Semantics being douchey,
Something about gamefan,
Something about what determines how good/bad an info/nerd source can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dartagnan1083

I'll just go ahead and post this
http://www.defunctgames.com/onrunnin.../feuds-52.php4

and this
http://www.defunctgames.com/onrunnin.../feuds-51.php4

They work, and provide evidence that the mainstream media is both fallible, suspect to vauge generelization, and suspect to pulling information out of their ass.

---

Um, they prove no more than the mainstream side, I'm afraid.

Those links certainly do not prove that you're right in any way on the specifics of our debate.

In fact, these links mean even less since they don't directly relate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dartagnan1083

I only label them as 'evidence' since 'bitter will likely find some way to say that they prove nothing.

---

"[..]find some way"? Well maybe you'd like to point out what they prove specifically as far as what we've been discussing.

Media outlets and people make mistakes all the time, but you have not shown how that connects back to the Treasure issue on here.

It wasn't too hard to find what was wrong with this latest example of your lacking argument. It's also rather amazing that -- seeing as how you claim your side to be obviously right -- that you have provided ZERO evidence that supports it.

Hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dartagnan1083

The funny thing is, only the first 2.3 pages concern the SNES vs Genesis.

It suddenly became about Super Castlevania IV,
My hatred of it,
My motives for attacking 16-bitter's fun-fact involving Treasure's connection to Cv IV,

---

Which you conceded were connective as to your hatred of that game.

I'm still waiting for your overwheling evidence (or any evidence at all) that shows how I'm "outright wrong" on this matter. So far, you've failed miserably.

Nice show of hyperbole, though.

Maybe youre right 16 bitter,i never proved you wrong cause i dont really know.But since this post is going about that their arent many good snes games which i actually do dissagree with.If snes had so less really quality games,it wouldnt have a feet to stand on in the Hardcore gamers selection,their wouldnt be the battle between the two gigants,plus there are many,many RPG,s on snes,which maybe dont fall in the same tast as every one haves,but that also wouldnt say that much snes titles have a lack of quality,Much games on snes are hyped more DK country,plus Nintendo Kissing parrents asses,plus they still.They care about violence thats why they release To much mario,mario party 1 tm 100,its becoming the Fucking David beckham of the video games,people get bored and even hate the Happy mario meal and his happy friends,Kidz are playing smash Brothers out of frustration but Finally they can beat the hell ot of mario and his Kiddo,s.they gett a OCD problem(obsessive Compulsive Disorder)they keep beating into mario and not for fun nooooh for hate of our Mustached Saddam(hes the fucking devil himself,he lets the kidz drink from the mario milk every single day)So exually mario is all the violence while beeing to cute but the toughts behind mario are horrible,luckely theyve putted the Little Mushroom eating Plumber behind the Bars (Saddamario AKA Satanmario).no but nintendo was the one aggainst atitude always,so snes was limited on action,gore and nudeness. :D .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16bitter

Which you conceded were connective as to your hatred of that game.

I'm still waiting for your overwheling evidence (or any evidence at all) that shows how I'm "outright wrong" on this matter. So far, you've failed miserably.

Nice show of hyperbole, though.

---

I like Super Castlevania IV.
I like it a lot.
Whoever worked on it, I salute them.
Treasure.. a cool developer.
Any degree of creative influence that any members of Treasure, past or present, had on Super Castlevania IV is impossible to truly determine given the information available online.
LET THIS ARGUMENT DIE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16bitter

As I've said, the truth is in question here -- that does not mean that Treasure, or what would become a great deal of Treasure as a company, have been proven in any way not to have been behind CIV as you, and others, have been pretending is so obvious.

It's rather hypocritical to say this:

j_factor -- Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that Treasure was "the team" that did Castlevania IV.

And then complain that a claim is unsubstantiated, especially since I at least sourced the statement from my side multiple times.

You? Well, you're acting as if it's overt that Treasure wasn't behind the game when you have no way of knowing.

---

I had little inkling on the matter one way or the other until you posted that interview. After reading that interview, I think it is overt that Treasure didn't derive from any one core group, if the interview answers are assumed to be accurate. I don't see how one can come to a different conclusion on that basis, and you have yet to provide any reasoning other than brief quotations from a couple sites that don't list sources.

I made it clear in my earlier reply that I was basing my thoughts on that interview, and you completely ignored my main point. Instead of taking my response in consideration and responding with contributory thoughts of your own, you have taken an overly defensive, "you can't prove I'm wrong" attitude.

I don't know why you're acting hostile towards everyone who questions an assertion of yours on a subject of low importance, and I don't know why you're unwilling to consider any points besides your own. I do wonder why you come on a discussion board to just be disagreeable and not actually discuss things. It's tiresome, so I'm not going to reply on this point any longer, as it's clear there's nothing I or anyone else can say that you'd actually listen to. Feel free to get the last word in with another sanctimonious post in which you ridicule me, and be on your merry way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16bitter

As I've said, the truth is in question here -- that does not mean that Treasure, or what would become a great deal of Treasure as a company, have been proven in any way not to have been behind CIV as you, and others, have been pretending is so obvious.

It's rather hypocritical to say this:

j_factor -- Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that Treasure was "the team" that did Castlevania IV.

And then complain that a claim is unsubstantiated, especially since I at least sourced the statement from my side multiple times.

You? Well, you're acting as if it's overt that Treasure wasn't behind the game when you have no way of knowing.

---

I had little inkling on the matter one way or the other until you posted that interview. After reading that interview, I think it is overt that Treasure didn't derive from any one core group, if the interview answers are assumed to be accurate.

---

You have no more proof than I do, and I'm merely saying that it's possible that it was a team effort at this time.

So you're now the one coming to conclusions that aren't supported in the evidence presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I don't see how one can come to a different conclusion on that basis, and you have yet to provide any reasoning other than brief quotations from a couple sites that don't list sources.

---

He listed games that Treasure members worked on -- that doesn't preclude team efforts. Logically, you're the one making false assumptions without any facts.

Nice try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I made it clear in my earlier reply that I was basing my thoughts on that interview, and you completely ignored my main point.

---

No. I pointed out how ridiculous it was of you to assume that Treasure didn't work on the game based on that interview. My point stands.

And you have yet to provide anything to suggest that it wasn't possible that they did indeed work on it as a team -- though you're falsely assuming that they didn't, and acting as if it should be clear to everyone when the issue is murky at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Instead of taking my response in consideration and esponding with contributory thoughts of your own, you have taken an overly defensive, "you can't prove I'm wrong" attitude.

---

If you're going to say I'm wrong, the funny thing is, I expect you to give me something that supports such a stance. That's too much to ask I take it?

Odd that you think it's hostile of me to defend my position -- i.e. that it is indeed possible that Treasure worked on the game -- but it's just as friendly as can be for you to totally dismiss it without anything to back up such a position.

Ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I don't know why you're acting hostile towards everyone

---

I asked for proof of any kind from your side over and over again, Yet I've gotten nothing but hubristic statements not supported by any evidence.

The hostility is not from my end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

who questions an assertion of yours on a subject of low importance, and I don't know why you're unwilling to consider any points besides your own.

---

That works both ways, sir.

Over and over again a number of yiou have acted as if its clear that Treasure didn't work on CIV with no proof of any kind to make such a conclusion logical.

If you provide some form of evidence, rather than arrogant dismassal of what little evidence that has been provided (all from my side I might add), then that will be different.

I'm still waiting. And, as I've said, many times now, it is indeed possible that Treasure didn't work on the game as a team -- so it appears that you haven't been paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I don't know why you're unwilling to consider any points besides your own.

---

Really? I wonder the same about you.

Funny.

Also laughable that you complain about my hostility and yet get more openly personal than anybody else on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I do wonder why you come on a discussion board to just be disagreeable and not actually discuss things.

---

So now I'm obligated to agree with you?

Whether we agree or not, we are having a discussion. The fact that you can't see that is rather poor form, if not embarrassing for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I don't know why you're unwilling to consider any points besides your own.It's tiresome, so I'm not going to reply on this point any longer, as it's clear there's nothing I or anyone else can say that you'd actually listen to.

---

All you've done is act as if you're right overtly without a shred of proof, while ignoring my points on the matter over and over again.

Now that, that's tiresome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Feel free to get the last word in with another sanctimonious post in which you ridicule me, and be on your merry way.

---

And what is the above? Absolute friendliness in a sea of even-handedness?

You're about as hypocritical as they get around here, and you have a distinctly ugly side when you know you have no ammo for your argument -- just as it was on the Saturn issue, it is here.

You never would directly answer me as I have done in response to your points every step of the way. Which is telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drixxel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16bitter

Which you conceded were connective as to your hatred of that game.

I'm still waiting for your overwheling evidence (or any evidence at all) that shows how I'm "outright wrong" on this matter. So far, you've failed miserably.

Nice show of hyperbole, though.

---

I like Super Castlevania IV.
I like it a lot.
Whoever worked on it, I salute them.
Treasure.. a cool developer.
Any degree of creative influence that any members of Treasure, past or present, had on Super Castlevania IV is impossible to truly determine given the information available online.
LET THIS ARGUMENT DIE.

---

The only reason this argument has continued is because of the oberbearing arrogance and assumptions made by those arguing with me.

I agree with everything you said, because the above is fair and reasonable.

As far as that last point, though, it takes more than one person to argue. So I'd hope that it wasn't directed strictly or only at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16bitter

The only reason this argument has continued is because of the oberbearing arrogance and assumptions made by those arguing with me.

I agree with everything you said, because the above is fair and reasonable.

As far as that last point, though, it takes more than one person to argue. So I'd hope that it wasn't directed strictly or only at me.

---

The point you've been making is that Treasure's SCIV involvement can't be proved either way, and as that claim of yours can't be either validated or invalidated, there is absolutely no point in continuing this particular disucssion. Everyone involved should just drop it.

That being said, I will now go play Super Castlevania IV and enjoy it supremely.

wow.