[005]
Larkmarn
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Most of the examples aren\'t even nominal (in that they\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \
to:
Most of the examples aren\\\'t even nominal (in that they\\\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \\\"gimmick failure\\\" than an issue of compatibility.
A more concrete version of this would be something along the lines of \\\"compatibility exception\\\" or something.
... also the CHUG entry is just kinda inaccurate.
Pretty much the entire VideoGame system seems to be more complaining with some of them only tangentially tied to \\\"compatibility.\\\"
A more concrete version of this would be something along the lines of \\\"compatibility exception\\\" or something.
... also the CHUG entry is just kinda inaccurate.
Pretty much the entire VideoGame system seems to be more complaining with some of them only tangentially tied to \\\"compatibility.\\\"
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Most of the examples aren\'t even nominal (in that they\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \
to:
Most of the examples aren\\\'t even nominal (in that they\\\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \\\"gimmick failure\\\" than an issue of compatibility.
A more concrete version of this would be something along the lines of \\\"compatibility exception\\\" or something.
... also the CHUG entry is just kinda inaccurate.
A more concrete version of this would be something along the lines of \\\"compatibility exception\\\" or something.
... also the CHUG entry is just kinda inaccurate.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Most of the examples aren\'t even nominal (in that they\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \
to:
Most of the examples aren\\\'t even nominal (in that they\\\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \\\"gimmick failure\\\" than an issue of compatibility.
... also the CHUG entry is just kinda inaccurate.
... also the CHUG entry is just kinda inaccurate.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Most of the examples aren\'t even nominal (in that they\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \
to:
Most of the examples aren\\\'t even nominal (in that they\\\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \\\"gimmick failure\\\" than an issue of compatibility.
... also the CHUG entry is just really inaccurate.
... also the CHUG entry is just really inaccurate.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Most of the examples aren\'t even nominal (in that they\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion.
to:
Most of the examples aren\\\'t even nominal (in that they\\\'re not advertised to be compatible) and whether or not they succeed seems to be a point of personal opinion. A few others seem to be more \\\"gimmick failure\\\" than an issue of compatibility.
