In fact, here's a link you stupid ignoramuses: http://kotaku.com/351661/crysis-comeback-moves-1-million-copies
They sold a million after 4 months. Halo 3 eclipsed that on preorders alone. They both cost approximately the same to make. Which is the better return on investment?
If I didn't care to learn how to type without using shorthand moron-speak like 'u', 'ur', 'ne1', 'm8', etc. that doesn't make me a 'smart person' who just didn't care enough to learn how to type
You're mingling my words with yours.
You are the one saying that there are "smart people" (ie: PC gamers) and there are "stupid people" (ie: console gamers). My rebuttal is that people are not "stupid" for taking the path of least resistance. I'm not putting people on a continuum of "smart" and "stupid".
Furthermore, knowledge of computers and the ridiculous rain dance necessary to make many PC games work does
not make one smart. It makes one
knowledgeable. And it only makes them knowledgeable in a specific field. People who know how to do whatever nonsense is necessary to make a PC game work aren't smart; they're just determined.
I'd love to see how you can argue that 'not caring to learn' about something you have a direct interest in DOESN'T make you stupid, because the internet is clogged with these people.
It's simple; they're not interested in a specific game here. This isn't a person who says, "I'm going to play Crysis no matter what." This is a person who says, "I want to play some entertaining videogames." That might include Crysis, but if Crysis is too high maintenance for them, they'll move on to something else. That is, for them, Crysis is not significantly better than Halo 3. So if it takes 10x the effort to play Crysis than Halo 3, why would it ever be reasonable to play Crysis over Halo 3? And after they're done with Halo 3, it'll be some other console game that they'd prefer over the 10x effort needed to play Crysis.
It doesn't make you stupid because not being obsessed with one specific game to the point where you will expend huge efforts to play it is not stupidity. It's simply an alternate set of priorities.
Hell, just look at the 'best games' for consoles - they're the stupidest, most formulaic, unimaginative, dumb-jock-focused games around.
You only say that because you don't like them. You have no objective defense of that statement.
Developers often blame the producer. However, no producer ever seems to get punished for that. I wonder... do producers stand above the law?!
How can they be punished for it? What crime did the Producer commit? Releasing a movie with 10 minutes obviously cut out of it isn't a crime; it's just releasing a bad movie. The problem is that people will pay for it anyway.
The best analogy with 'console vs. pc' is comparing someone who likes racing to someone who doesn't.
That analogy is broken. The first problem with the analogy is that it's not even true for regular people. Maybe 20% of the population fits into your analogy. The rest are just people who want to get from place to place. It's a false dichotomy.
Further, people with an interest in racing don't necessarily have, or even want, cars that are good at racing. Their interest can easily be in
watching racing, not participating in it.
Lastly, it doesn't even fit gaming because it suggests that PC gaming is more serious than console gaming
because it is harder. Which is rather ludicrous.