The whole "Halo is going to have mass online co-op and four player co-op." Didn't have either. "Many great, anticipated titles from release". There were none from my P.O.V, bar Halo.
Lest we forget that they said you would be able to keep upgrading it, thus removing the need for another Microsoft console to be released for many years. False.
Originally posted by PVS
but that does not reflect on the system, which (eventually) delivered on every promise in every aspect of gameplay.
It's not a matter of bitter. I believed they could follow through and had no reason to believe otherwise, but they didn't. Shit happens.
The point is, you said "eventually". Exactly. It took them many years to bring out what they promised much earlier, and even then all it did was salvage something.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The whole "Halo is going to have mass online co-op and four player co-op." Didn't have either. "Many great, anticipated titles from release". There were none from my P.O.V, bar Halo.Lest we forget that they said you would be able to keep upgrading it, thus removing the need for another Microsoft console to be released for many years. False.
-AC
Ah okay, thanks.
Problem with original Xbox is, as you said, it was basically a dumbed down computer with shittier graphics and a bulky controller. It's too bad they didn't have any real exclusive games for their system aside from Halo 2 (Halo came out later for the PC), because the system was an interesting concept from the get-go.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So basically, you didn't prove much with that did you?"It sold 20 million copies." Yeah, resulting in Microsoft losing out big time because they had to drop their ridiculous prices about ten times due to nobody buying the thing. That, plus all the money they laid out on pathetically expensive advertising and merch, it was a knock to them. So yeah, they sold a shitload after they succumbed to about ten reductions and were selling them for dirt cheap and with four games (like they were doing here).
PS2 didn't have a strength then did it? You make no sense. It had loads of games...ok. "But a lot of them sucked." So what's the point?
Xbox is a failed PC, simple as. It has PC style graphics with nowhere near the quality of visual or more importantly, gameplay. It was the "port king" only because it had more ports. It didn't do any of them particularly well.
Nintendo make a bulk of their own games. Sony and Xbox have franchises and they just keep them going throughout the consoles. Nintendo have that too, sure they do, but they also bring out brand new games. Xbox and Sony have to rely on multi-platform games. The games that Nintendo DON'T create, they take and make better. EG: Resident Evil. It got to a point where Xbox, Dreamcast and PS2 could do nothing more and Nintendo just come along and said "Hang about."
Also, how on Earth you can claim that Prince of Persia was totally different and Metroid Prime wasn't, I'll never know. They were essentially both side scrolling games. Cube took Metroid into first and third person with many new kinds of gameplay and RELEVANT features. Prince of Persia took the easy way out. Make it 3D, steal from some other games and add some gymnastics. When you're plagiarising from Devil May Cry, you're scraping the barrel.
So yes, in closing, the Xbox was a failure when compared to what was promised, and Microsoft- for the superficial sake of having high sales- took price losses to make sure it happened. It didn't matter whether people liked it, they wanted to shift units.
-AC
And the Gamecube didnt do that either?
PS2 strength is the amount of games. What else would it not be? It's not the graphics, its not the sound, as you pointed out, its not original.
XBOX was called the port king because all the ports had better graphics.
What new games did Nintendo release for the GC that dont use Mario, Link or Samus or any other Nintendo franchise?
"The games that Nintendo DON'T create, they take and make better. EG: Resident Evil" Capcom made that game. Nintendo had nothing to do with the development of that game. So, they didnt take that game, and make it better. Capcom made that game better.
Your right, I should of put Metriod Prime in the same category as Prince Of Persia.
But in your case, XBOX did fail the promise they said they were going to do. But the XBOX didnt flop. It still sold well, created some franchises, implemented XBOX Live and gained respect in the gaming community. If it didnt, the XBOX 360 wouldnt be around right now.
Originally posted by Smasandian
And the Gamecube didnt do that either?
No, not to the degree of Xbox.
Originally posted by Smasandian
PS2 strength is the amount of games. What else would it not be? It's not the graphics, its not the sound, as you pointed out, its not original.
Hardly a strength then is it? Come on, use a bit of sense. If I buy as many shit CDs as there are PS2 games, it doesn't mean I have a good CD collection, just a big one.
Originally posted by Smasandian
XBOX was called the port king because all the ports had better graphics.
How did you work that out? If they are PC games and the PC is more powerful than the Xbox by a laughable margin...yeah, back to the start. How did you work that out?
Originally posted by Smasandian
What new games did Nintendo release for the GC that dont use Mario, Link or Samus or any other Nintendo franchise?
That's not in conjunction with the point. I never said Nintendo was the most original console. Though technically, all the characters and games they are famous for, they created. Those franchises you mentioned, Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, the NEW Resident Evils from absolute scratch.
Sony had more games, much more. So what? None of it's games can touch the Cube's best, and since quality is what we're discussing, that's what matters. If you wanna get technical, Metal Gear Solid? Nintendo debuted it. Final Fantasy? Nintendo debuted it. What more is there to say? Sony and Microsoft are vehicles for games makers to display their work on. Nintendo are games makers who make machines to display their games on. Or if not, to make existing games better.
That's why they're the best, because they make games for gamers that are fun without necessarily being kiddy. Sony feed the GTAs to the kids who wanna feel grown up, where as there are men, women, children and probably the elderly worldwide playing Mario Kart.
Originally posted by Smasandian
"The games that Nintendo DON'T create, they take and make better. EG: Resident Evil" Capcom made that game. Nintendo had nothing to do with the development of that game. So, they didnt take that game, and make it better. Capcom made that game better.
That's a fair point. The advantage rests with Nintendo still. Sony couldn't take the series further, so they sold it to Dreamcast who gave Capcom the power to make Code: Veronica. Sony then took it back, demeaned the graphics and claimed it as their own. Then it couldn't get beyond Gun Survivor, so what happened? Nintendo gave Capcom the leeway to produced not only Zero, but 4. The best of the series, above and beyond anything Sony could do. Yet when Sony DID take it on, it was noticeably decreased in presentation.
Originally posted by Smasandian
But in your case, XBOX did fail the promise they said they were going to do. But the XBOX didnt flop. It still sold well, created some franchises, implemented XBOX Live and gained respect in the gaming community. If it didnt, the XBOX 360 wouldnt be around right now.
Of course it would. What are you talking about? Xbox could have sold none and Bill Gates could still have afforded to make consoles if he wanted to. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Microsoft have a budget.
It flopped, it's only viewed as a success because they brought along a successful online program, extremely late in the day, that they promise years previously.
Even then, if Xbox's weren't dirt cheap, Xbox Live would never be a hit.
-AC
Everyone keeps saying they don’t like the Revolution (Wii) controller because of how it looks…but they don’t see the potential for what it can actually DO!
Instead of pressing a button to swing a sword, you physically swing the controller. Instead of pushing a button to cast your fishing rod, you physically cast it out. Instead of pressing a button to pass the ball or swing your racket….well, you get the idea.
I think it’s an excellent idea. It’s going to attract a lot of people who don’t play video games because the learning curve is just too friggen hard. You’ll no longer have to use two analog-joysticks while pressing 20 different buttons just to move your character and perform an action; you’ll be able to act out the action. Also, it gets people physically involved in the game. You’re not just sitting on your ass pressing buttons, your moving around and physically getting into the game.
I think Nintendo’s really got something going here. While Xbox and PSX are just beefing up their graphics, speed, and internet capabilities, Nintendo is making moves and trying to make video games accessible to a much wider audience and breaking away from the traditional way of playing video games. I think Nintendo really has potential to set the standard for future gaming. By constantly giving in to the hardcore gamer’s demands, Microsoft and Sony are just putting out the same old shit, only faster and with better graphics. Inadvertently, I believe the might even be causing gamers to get bored. Nintendo is trying to change all that. They might not be giving in to the hardcore gamer’s demands, but they are opening new doors and inviting in a much wider audience. It’s kind-of a gamble, but I think it can be a huge success if they pull it off. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hardly a strength then is it? Come on, use a bit of sense. If I buy as many shit CDs as there are PS2 games, it doesn't mean I have a good CD collection, just a big one.How did you work that out? If they are PC games and the PC is more powerful than the Xbox by a laughable margin...yeah, back to the start. How did you work that out?
That's not in conjunction with the point. I never said Nintendo was the most original console. Though technically, all the characters and games they are famous for, they created. Those franchises you mentioned, Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, the NEW Resident Evils from absolute scratch.
Sony had more games, much more. So what? None of it's games can touch the Cube's best, and since quality is what we're discussing, that's what matters. If you wanna get technical, Metal Gear Solid? Nintendo debuted it. Final Fantasy? Nintendo debuted it. What more is there to say? Sony and Microsoft are vehicles for games makers to display their work on. Nintendo are games makers who make machines to display their games on. Or if not, to make existing games better.
That's why they're the best, because they make games for gamers that are fun without necessarily being kiddy. Sony feed the GTAs to the kids who wanna feel grown up, where as there are men, women, children and probably the elderly worldwide playing Mario Kart.
That's a fair point. The advantage rests with Nintendo still. Sony couldn't take the series further, so they sold it to Dreamcast who gave Capcom the power to make Code: Veronica. Sony then took it back, demeaned the graphics and claimed it as their own. Then it couldn't get beyond Gun Survivor, so what happened? Nintendo gave Capcom the leeway to produced not only Zero, but 4. The best of the series, above and beyond anything Sony could do. Yet when Sony DID take it on, it was noticeably decreased in presentation.
Of course it would. What are you talking about? Xbox could have sold none and Bill Gates could still have afforded to make consoles if he wanted to. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Microsoft have a budget.
It flopped, it's only viewed as a success because they brought along a successful online program, extremely late in the day, that they promise years previously.
Even then, if Xbox's weren't dirt cheap, Xbox Live would never be a hit.
-AC
1. But quality doesnt matter though. People buy shit games because if they didnt, they're wouldnt be any shitty games. So people who buy shitty games, will automatically assume that the console with the most games is the one they should buy. And dont tell me that theyre isnt anybody who buys shitty games.
2. I worked it out because thats what happens. PC gets only a few console ports, and theyre generally only from the XBOX. Most ports that are on 3 systems are usually better on the XBOX because of the graphics and XBOX Live.
3. I was under the assumption that you thought Nintendo was the most original console. I think it is, but the games now are not original. Yes they have created all those amazing franchises through thier development house, but SCEA and MS have the same thing. All three publish games, while seperate developers make the games, so everybody is in the same boat.
4. I know that Nintendo has the best quality of games. But I thought the discussion was about you saying that MS and Sony just rehash sequels and the same old games. I'm just saying Nintendo does the same thing, but they do it better.
I know Nintendo debuted all those great franchises back in the NES days. But that doesnt matter. They didnt make the games, so they should not credited for anything about those franchises. All Nintendo did was to cashing thier cheques and give that gold seal of approval. Nintendo shouldnt even get credit for the games to appear on the NES. At those days, the NES was the only console available, so game makers had to develop games on it (or the PC)
5. "Nintendo gave Capcom the leeway to produced not only Zero, but 4. The best of the series, above and beyond anything Sony could do"
Dont forget that Nintendo paid Capcom for the famous "6 games" deal, but they released only 3 (RE4, Viewtiful Joe, and Killer 7). And the funny thing is that all 3 have been released on PS2 also (even if the deal was exclusive)
But what did Nintendo actually out do Sony on. They didnt make the games. The difference between both versions of RE4 is graphics, but thats expected. But the PS2 version of RE4 has more replayablity.
I know MS has all the money in the world, but the if XBOX didnt gain any respect, didnt sell at all, I dont think MS would still be in the console business. Bill Gates isnt stupid to the point of making an expansive product for the hell of it.
Originally posted by Smasandian
1. But quality doesnt matter though. People buy shit games because if they didnt, they're wouldnt be any shitty games. So people who buy shitty games, will automatically assume that the console with the most games is the one they should buy. And dont tell me that theyre isnt anybody who buys shitty games.
Yeah, these are called corporate whooping bitches and their opinion on anything is invalid, and with a claim like "Quality doesn't matter", I'm considering how much validity YOU hold.
Originally posted by Smasandian
2. I worked it out because thats what happens. PC gets only a few console ports, and theyre generally only from the XBOX. Most ports that are on 3 systems are usually better on the XBOX because of the graphics and XBOX Live.
PCs have better graphics though. Much more powerful, depending on the graphics card. So where are you getting this from?
Originally posted by Smasandian
3. I was under the assumption that you thought Nintendo was the most original console. I think it is, but the games now are not original. Yes they have created all those amazing franchises through thier development house, but SCEA and MS have the same thing. All three publish games, while seperate developers make the games, so everybody is in the same boat.
And Nintendo still make their own games with in house developers. Nintendo is a core game production company as well as a corporation for making consoles. Sony have a game making department, but it's shit.
Microsoft shit theirselves so they bought Rareware/Rare. What happened? Perfect Dark: Zero. Biggest let down since...well...Halo 2 probably. Would that have happened if they were working with Nintendo? I doubt it.
Originally posted by Smasandian
4. I know that Nintendo has the best quality of games. But I thought the discussion was about you saying that MS and Sony just rehash sequels and the same old games. I'm just saying Nintendo does the same thing, but they do it better.
I know Nintendo debuted all those great franchises back in the NES days. But that doesnt matter. They didnt make the games, so they should not credited for anything about those franchises. All Nintendo did was to cashing thier cheques and give that gold seal of approval. Nintendo shouldnt even get credit for the games to appear on the NES. At those days, the NES was the only console available, so game makers had to develop games on it (or the PC)
Nintendo do it not only better, but they don't always rehash the same game. It's not Mario platformer time and time again. The reuse the CHARACTERS, in many different kinds of game.
Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario in general, then all the other games involving those characters. It's never one kind of game.
Originally posted by Smasandian
5. "Nintendo gave Capcom the leeway to produced not only Zero, but 4. The best of the series, above and beyond anything Sony could do"
Dont forget that Nintendo paid Capcom for the famous "6 games" deal, but they released only 3 (RE4, Viewtiful Joe, and Killer 7). And the funny thing is that all 3 have been released on PS2 also (even if the deal was exclusive)
But what did Nintendo actually out do Sony on. They didnt make the games. The difference between both versions of RE4 is graphics, but thats expected. But the PS2 version of RE4 has more replayablity.
They also did Zero.
What do you mean "What did Nintendo actually out do Sony on."? RE 4 on PS2 hasn't got MORE longevity, at all. It has a side game that is half decent and lets you in on a bit more of the plot. A side game you have to complete the normal game to achieve. What else is there? The needless torch and the shitty electric gun that is nothing more than an alternative extra? Everything about the RE 4 Cube version is better, it's also the original one. They out did Sony by being able to even produce that game. If Cube didn't exist, we wouldn't have the RE 4 we have today. Nintendo out did Sony by not only producing two brand new RE's beyond anything Sony could do, but they also re did the first one to blinding degrees. What were Sony doing to enhance the franchise? Gun Survivor?
Originally posted by Smasandian
I know MS has all the money in the world, but the if XBOX didnt gain any respect, didnt sell at all, I dont think MS would still be in the console business. Bill Gates isnt stupid to the point of making an expansive product for the hell of it.
Yes he is.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, these are called corporate whooping bitches and their opinion on anything is invalid, and with a claim like "Quality doesn't matter", I'm considering how much validity YOU hold.PCs have better graphics though. Much more powerful, depending on the graphics card. So where are you getting this from?
And Nintendo still make their own games with in house developers. Nintendo is a core game production company as well as a corporation for making consoles. Sony have a game making department, but it's shit.
Microsoft shit theirselves so they bought Rareware/Rare. What happened? Perfect Dark: Zero. Biggest let down since...well...Halo 2 probably. Would that have happened if they were working with Nintendo? I doubt it.
Nintendo do it not only better, but they don't always rehash the same game. It's not Mario platformer time and time again. The reuse the CHARACTERS, in many different kinds of game.
Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario in general, then all the other games involving those characters. It's never one kind of game.
They also did Zero.
What do you mean "What did Nintendo actually out do Sony on."? RE 4 on PS2 hasn't got MORE longevity, at all. It has a side game that is half decent and lets you in on a bit more of the plot. A side game you have to complete the normal game to achieve. What else is there? The needless torch and the shitty electric gun that is nothing more than an alternative extra? Everything about the RE 4 Cube version is better, it's also the original one. They out did Sony by being able to even produce that game. If Cube didn't exist, we wouldn't have the RE 4 we have today. Nintendo out did Sony by not only producing two brand new RE's beyond anything Sony could do, but they also re did the first one to blinding degrees. What were Sony doing to enhance the franchise? Gun Survivor?
Yes he is.
-AC
1. Or, they just dont know what good games are.. When did I say, " Quality doesnt matter"? I dont think I've said that.
2. Who ****ing cares if the PC is more powerful, developers rarely port to the PC. What Im talking about is the ports between the consoles. And its generally considered that XBOX has the best ports. And actually, most PC ports dont actually take advantage of the PC hardware, all you usually get is better resolution.
3. Yeah, but its Sony developing company is still there, doesnt matter if its shit.
4. So, every game that comes out on the GC and other Nintendo consoles are the best games out there?
Nintendo doesnt do any of the developing or tells developers to change anything.
5. " Nintendo do it not only better, but they don't always rehash the same game. It's not Mario platformer time and time again. The reuse the CHARACTERS, in many different kinds of game.
Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario in general, then all the other games involving those characters. It's never one kind of game."
- Okay, so there's 7-8 Mario Parties, 5 Mario Karts, 3 Mario Tennis, they have redone 4 mario platform games, 3 Mario golf's, 3 Mario RPG's, 8 Mario platform games. Yeah, they dont rehash anything.
Your not getting the point. Capcom gave us Resident Evil. Not Nintendo. You really think RE4 would of been different if it was on XBOX. Why would you think that?
6. Bill Gates is stupid. OK.
Please
Originally posted by Smasandian
1. Or, they just dont know what good games are.. When did I say, " Quality doesnt matter"? I dont think I've said that.
Wow, memory like a goldfish. "But quality doesnt matter though."
First part of your last reply.
Originally posted by Smasandian
2. Who ****ing cares if the PC is more powerful, developers rarely port to the PC. What Im talking about is the ports between the consoles. And its generally considered that XBOX has the best ports. And actually, most PC ports dont actually take advantage of the PC hardware, all you usually get is better resolution.
It's generally considered that American Idol produces good singers. I don't give a crap what's "generally" considered. It has the best ports of all three because it's designed like a PC. It's just shitter and doesn't pull it off anywhere near as well.
Originally posted by Smasandian
3. Yeah, but its Sony developing company is still there, doesnt matter if its shit.
Well, yes. It does doesn't it? In this debate.
Originally posted by Smasandian
4. So, every game that comes out on the GC and other Nintendo consoles are the best games out there?
Nintendo doesnt do any of the developing or tells developers to change anything.
I don't recall saying every game Nintendo put out is the best game out there. If you can show me where I said that I'll concede the point.
Originally posted by Smasandian
5. Okay, so there's 7-8 Mario Parties, 5 Mario Karts, 3 Mario Tennis, they have redone 4 mario platform games, 3 Mario golf's, 3 Mario RPG's, 8 Mario platform games. Yeah, they dont rehash anything.Your not getting the point. Capcom gave us Resident Evil. Not Nintendo. You really think RE4 would of been different if it was on XBOX. Why would you think that?
Yes, and how many of those games are exactly the same each time? One? Fifty? None? Exactly. Mario Party games are similar because they're based around the same concept, but they're never the same game. I've played them all, and the reason they keep putting them out is because people keep wanting to play them and they keep making them better each time. Mario platformers? Even on the NES each one was a massive progression. Super Mario 2 to Super Mario? Massive difference. SM 3 was even further along than that. They reuse the characters, and certain concepts. It's never the same game, a la Sonic the Hedgehog. It's not like Devil May Cry where the highlight of each game is a new flip, or new move.
To use your point against you, how many different Sonic's are there? How does the difference compare to the progression of the Mario series (which also allows for all it's offshoots)? Super Mario Sunshine was hardly same old same old. It was closer to Mario 64, which was a step forward in itself.
Resident Evil 4 happened the way it did because it happened on the Cube. What's so hard to grasp?
Originally posted by Smasandian
6. Bill Gates is stupid. OK.Please
You: Bill Gates isnt stupid to the point of making an expansive product for the hell of it.
Me: Yes he is.
I failed to see where I called him an overall stupid man, or that I implied he was stupid.
I was simply saying that he would very clearly make an expensive product for the hell of it, because being number 1 is important to him.
-AC
1. Quality doesnt matter to people who buy shitty games. They look at the PS2 and see it has a huge library and they buy it because of it. That was my point. If they bought quality games, Dynsaty Warriors wouldnt be around. I never said that quality doesnt matter to me.
2. Yeah, but the PC gets very little console ports. Why is the PC even considered in the same group as consoles. They're completly different market.
3.Well, you say, "Sony and Microsoft are vehicles for games makers to display their work on. Nintendo are games makers who make machines to display their games on". So, I showed that Sony and MS both have developing firms under their company. Does it matter if theyre not as good as Nintendo. No, but they still have them.
4. "Sony had more games, much more. So what? None of it's games can touch the Cube's best"
"Nintendo do it not only better"
5. Oh, come on. Every Mario Party game is the same. They're might be a few more minigames and a different looking board, but they're the same thing. I must admit that I was wrong with the platformers, but Nintendo still rehashes the same game in terms of the sports title, Kart games and the Party games. So they add a microphone minigame and a tilt minigame.
6."You: Bill Gates isnt stupid to the point of making an expansive product for the hell of it.
Me: Yes he is.
I failed to see where I called him an overall stupid man, or that I implied he was stupid.
I was simply saying that he would very clearly make an expensive product for the hell of it, because being number 1 is important to him."
You just called him stupid. I didnt know they're were different kinds of stupid. I thought people who are stupid are considered stupid.
And finally, answer my quesiton please. How would RE4 be different if it was released on the XBOX or PS2?
Originally posted by Smasandian
1. Quality doesnt matter to people who buy shitty games. They look at the PS2 and see it has a huge library and they buy it because of it. That was my point. If they bought quality games, Dynsaty Warriors wouldnt be around. I never said that quality doesnt matter to me.
Yes, I'm aware. I know someone who prides himself on being a corporate *****. The fact is, it's stupid and people who do it, to me, have a negligible opinion.
Originally posted by Smasandian
2. Yeah, but the PC gets very little console ports. Why is the PC even considered in the same group as consoles. They're completly different market.
So what? We're not discussing that. How can an Xbox do PC ports better when it's nowhere close to being anywhere near a PC...which is what the games originate on?
Originally posted by Smasandian
3.Well, you say, "Sony and Microsoft are vehicles for games makers to display their work on. Nintendo are games makers who make machines to display their games on". So, I showed that Sony and MS both have developing firms under their company. Does it matter if theyre not as good as Nintendo. No, but they still have them.
They have firms they pay to do it. It's not in-house like Nintendo's Silicon Nights or Nintendo Games.
Originally posted by Smasandian
5. Oh, come on. Every Mario Party game is the same. They're might be a few more minigames and a different looking board, but they're the same thing. I must admit that I was wrong with the platformers, but Nintendo still rehashes the same game in terms of the sports title, Kart games and the Party games. So they add a microphone minigame and a tilt minigame.
Yes, as I said, it's based around the same concept but it's never the same game. There's always more than enough difference to justify them making it. It's not "Look! Dante can RUN up walls now!"
As for Mario Kart, it's a racing game, there's not much more you can do, but the ones that have existed have been different enough to be fun. Super Mario Kart was excellent, Mario Kart 64 had a legendary battle multiplayer mode with different features, then there's Double Dash which again added a great new feature and way of playing.
Originally posted by Smasandian
You just called him stupid. I didnt know they're were different kinds of stupid. I thought people who are stupid are considered stupid.And finally, answer my quesiton please. How would RE4 be different if it was released on the XBOX or PS2?
I did call him stupid enough to make that decision. I never said he was stupid in general. There are different kinds of stupid. Someone can be smart but have a particularly stupid opinion.
Second, I answered it. We've seen how different it is aesthetically, I never claimed the GAME would be different. I said it wouldn't be in existence how it is, without the Cube. It was allowed to have all that power, that graphical capability, that beauty, BECAUSE of the Cube.
When Sony decided they wanted it, they had to dull it down dramatically, it couldn't cope. Xbox and PS2 may be more powerful than the Cube overall, but graphically neither of them are up to scratch. Which essentially doesn't matter, graphics, of course. My point was, Cube allowed it to be as good as it was. Sony didn't take it and make it better, they demeaned it.
-AC