Icycalm, keep that shit for your own forum, thankyouverymuch. ... gratuitous insults which lead the discussion nowhere won't be tolerated even from you.
There's not a single gratuitous comment in any of my posts in this thread. If the substantiation that I offered is not enough for you, ask for more and I will provide it. As to your level of tolerance of my ideas and arguments, it has nothing to do with me, and you will of course take any action you deem necessary, whenever you deem it so.
If you want to attempt to explain why real-time polygons, three-dimensional mechanics in a two-dimensional medium, and analog control pads or control systems based on non-gaming interfaces are "utterly superior" to bitmap-based graphics, pure 2-D mechanics, and digital controls, go ahead.
I already have: because they are more immersive, i.e. as I have explained at length in my Genealogy (even just the parts of it that have been published on the internet so far), artistically superior. And I mean, besides all that (which is all there is, and all there needs to be, but perhaps some humor might help you see the ridiculousness of your position anyway), if you think that a retarded childish little 2D bitmap, or some variation of fucking Tetris or whatever (which is what all the 2D action genres boil down to in the end), or a fucking arcade stick or whatever, are the ULTIMATE POSSIBLE ACHIEVEMENTS OF DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, and that the purpose of the entire history of digital technology as it pertains to art had been achieved with these pathetic little developments, you are out of your fucking mind. Even if we put behind us all the theory and all the science and all the art, and just simply put a screen from Super Mario World or whatever (to demonstrate the graphics), and an arcade stick on a couple of pedestals and write beneath them: THE PINNACLES OF DIGITAL ART, we'd have even THE PEDESTALS THEMSELVES LAUGHING AT US, dude. The absurdity of your position is so obvious the moment we leave some early-90's obsessive's dedicated gaming room and go out into the street and get some goddamn air, that no arguments at all would be required to prove any of my points (quite aside from the fact that I HAVE ALL OF THEM WHILE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING). Like, for reals dude. If you seriously think that the pinnacle of art is The Super Shinobi or Strider or whatever, you seriously need some goddamn air. Nor can you escape from this implication by hiding yourself inside the term "videogames" and claiming that art and videogames are two separate things, because that dichotomy has already been demolished in my Genealogy. Art and videogames are EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and as I explain in my article on Set Theory (and as you should be able to grasp without even reading it), videogames are basically a superset of all previous (and in fact even future) artforms. So if you say that some random 2D childish little game is the pinnacle of videogames you are saying it is the pinnacle of art, and no amount of muddling the waters or backpedalling can obscure that retarded insinuation.
The reason I prefer 16-bit games over 8-bit ones, or games with scene development over stuff without it is, essentially, an aesthetics subject.
As if all my writings weren't about aesthetics, lol.
A plain matter of beauty. Of pleasing my eyes.
There's nothing "plain" about beauty, Recap. It is an extremely complicated subject, and our understanding and pursuit of it hinges on an immense level to all the rules and guidelines art theorists like me have been expounding for millennia. The retort that "that is simply what I like" belongs on gamefaqs: at the level of art theory and criticism it is merely an ignorant childish gesture. And I am telling you why games with stage progression (i.e. scene development) "please your eyes" -- instead of having a game be a single glorified stage (however beautiful) -- because real life has scene development, which is why therefore it's more immersive.
It has nothing to do with how well the game makes me feel as its stupid protagonist --neither how well the game makes of me its actual protagonist-- nor the virtual tangibleness of its world.
It has everything to do with exactly those things, and your denial of this obvious simple fact is merely your way of attacking the theory which you can see eventually, in the long run, and from a higher viewpoint, denies the superiority (and therefore ultimately the relevance) of your tastes.
As I told you once, I don't give a shit about immersion in my action games. Not that kind, anyway.
There's only one kind of immersion, and as far as 2D Japanese games go you are a downright ADDICT of it.