Count Dookkake
Member
Jag22 said:
Nothing in the above is factual.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
August 2008 NPD Results
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
Nothing in the above is factual.
Jokeropia said:
I think its a matter of opinion, it depends on tastes for one. I personally think that every single system out right now has a great selection of titles to look forward to. Though for this fall the PSP mainly followed by the Wii have a disappointing lineup - first and third party wise, in my opinion.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The Experiment said:
You've never actually played any Wii games, have you?
Count Dookkake
Member
AstroLad said:
Uh, ever hear that quality is subjective?
I took the bait.
ghostlyjoe
Member
AstroLad said:
I can't quite figure you out. Are 98% of your posts sarcasm, or is it the full 100?
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Metaphoreus said:
My roommate owns a Wii, which used to be my Wii. Own all the major games for it too.
Nice try though.
Version 3.0
Member
The Experiment said:
So they buy games, but don't play them. Sure. I believe you.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The Experiment said:
I'm not going to list all of the games that your generalization left out, but suffice it to say that your list of two games is far from exhaustive in terms of good--or even great--Wii games. It was this fact that led me to conclude that all you knew about the Wii was its name.
truly101 said:
Well, this is an easy game to play when you think about it. Here's how I play it: the only games I'm interested in that are available for the 360 are Pac-Man CE (and a few other odd arcade releases), Blue Dragon, Tales of Vesperia and Fable 2.
I own a PS3 but only have two games so far: LocoRoco and Disgaea 3
Looking forward to LBP and Valkyria Chronicles, of course, but other than that I'm a bit bored by what's out there and what's coming soon.I guess what I'm trying to say is that all of us can play this game and make each of the consoles appear to have great or horrible line-ups based on our opinions...
Liabe Brave
Member
No it isn't. Preference is subjective. Evaluations of craft and intelligence aren't precise, but they don't rely on your tastes.Count Dookkake said:
Count Dookkake
Member
Liabe Brave said:
Wrong.
It depends how one defines quality.
"Does it function" is one parameter.
"Does it entertain" is another.
"Does it look real" is yet another.
There are many more. The user determines in what order these or other markers of quality matter to them.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Pimpbaa said:
But the DS beats the pants off every platform this generation in terms of quality and quantity of "core" games, not just the Wii.
Hell, I'd even go as far as to say it rivals the PS2's. :/
Liabe Brave said:
This is a reasonable argument, but one that opens up a very large can of philosophical worms that would require a 100+ page thread dedicated entirely to it. I've often considered breaching the subject, but it's such a large discussion I've simply avoided it.
One thing that can be said, however, is that many people would prefer lower quality games that suit their preferences rather than a higher quality game that doesn't.
A very clear example of this is Barbie vs. G. I. Joe. If boys were given the choice between a beaten down, old G.I. Joe and a sparkling new Barbie, most would still choose the G.I. Joe. The reverse could be said for most young girls. I don't think Wii vs. PS3/360 is really all that different -- even if we agree that the PS3/360 games are of higher quality on average, it's apparent that the majority would rather play games that suit their interest rather than super budget games they percieve as puerile, nerdy, sophomoric, or some combination thereof.
As an actual game related example, "Dogz" is doing well not because 10 year old girls actually prefer lower quality games, but because there are so few games dedicated to their interests at the moment that a game of mediocre quality can do well because it has virtually no other competition. Girls would rather play something like Dogz than something like MGS4 -- even if MGS4 is better made, it's stupid and childish. From their point of view.
Well, dogs has no competition except Nintendogs, of course, which is by all accounts a well made game and is one of if not the best selling game of the decade. Which should show that the same applies to these preferences too: mediocre games can do well with low competition, but in such an environment high quality ones can have stratospheric sales.
Huh? is that supposed to make fun of Home? or avatars? When I look @ the Wii list I see tons of games i've never really heard of, combined w/ games that will have a superior Ps360 version and a couple good games. I really just don't see a Banjo, Gears 2, or Fable in that list for big heavy hitters this holiday.Count Dookkake said:
I personally can't really see how any gamer can believe the Wii's library is better than the 360's.
I know i'm going to be attacked with "it's subjectie!/to each his own" etc... but seriously in terms of quantity there is no way the Wii really holds up against the 360's diverse library of quality games. The Wii does have good games, but not too many of them, and even worse is the fact that most of these would have been better off on another system - SMG, MP3, Brawl, SPM, MKWii...
Before someone starts accusing me of being a worthless superficial asshole who prefers "graphics over gameplay" i'd like to say that first of all, games can have good gameplay AND good graphics. Second of all, the next-gen consoles have other advantages - better AI and physics, modern online play etc.
Third of all, graphics DO matter. It's like a really old, fat and ugly model. People can protect her by saying "she has great personality!" but that doesn't matter - a model should look good.
Sure, wanting complex and thoughful games with good graphics/physics/sound/online might make me a "nerd", "a small selfish sector" but i'm fine with it. That's the whole point of this forum, isn't it?
I own a Wii and several games for it btw.
I know i'm going to be attacked with "it's subjectie!/to each his own" etc... but seriously in terms of quantity there is no way the Wii really holds up against the 360's diverse library of quality games. The Wii does have good games, but not too many of them, and even worse is the fact that most of these would have been better off on another system - SMG, MP3, Brawl, SPM, MKWii...
Before someone starts accusing me of being a worthless superficial asshole who prefers "graphics over gameplay" i'd like to say that first of all, games can have good gameplay AND good graphics. Second of all, the next-gen consoles have other advantages - better AI and physics, modern online play etc.
Third of all, graphics DO matter. It's like a really old, fat and ugly model. People can protect her by saying "she has great personality!" but that doesn't matter - a model should look good.
Sure, wanting complex and thoughful games with good graphics/physics/sound/online might make me a "nerd", "a small selfish sector" but i'm fine with it. That's the whole point of this forum, isn't it?
I own a Wii and several games for it btw.
Count Dookkake said:
Well actually.. the 360 has a way more complete library than Wii.
Wii has some very good games (Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash, Excite + a few third party games) but are sorely lacking in rpg, racers, shooters and online to name but a few genres.
There are also a whole lot better scoring games on 360 and the library is overall of a higher quality (there is a larger % of crap on Wii, that is a fact judging by scores anyway)
I love Nintendo "core" games but it sadens me that a console with such low overall game quality and shitty hardware sells this well. It is not a good thing for traditional gamers (like me)
Liabe Brave
Member
That's very true. But allowing the definition to be infinitely malleable by personal preference is equivalent to destroying the very idea of definition.Count Dookkake said:
We already have many good words to apply to what one likes: "preference", "taste", "opinion", etc. It makes much more sense to reserve "quality" to apply to actual traits of the object in question, rather than inscrutable decisions within the minds that perceive it. I understand that this fundamentally realist position is unpopular in today's relativistic milieu, but that doesn't make it false.
Simple example: does the sentence, "I like that game a lot, even though it's not very good" sound idiotic? Would you mock a person saying it? Because under your view of quality it's complete nonsense.
A tangential issue, but I entirely agree. My view of "quality" as inhering in the object is the only definition that allows such analysis, though. Since many folks assume such talk leads to "high art"-type condescension, it might be necessary to point out that I don't think "quality" is a genre or a theme; there can be high-quality casual games just as easily as high-quality hardcore games.Opiate said:
Cromat said:
This is exactly the sort of self centered behavior I was highlighting in my earlier post. Jag22 also gave a great example -- as a reply to my post no less.
Being unable to understand how anyone can prefer the Wii is practically the definition of self centered behavior: the inability to percieve or understand the needs and desires of others.
It is has become one of the hallmarks of "nerdy gamer" stereotypes, although it's usually manifested in a different way -- guys who talk about games with everyone, even though it's apparent that most people don't care. It's like the football guy who talks about the Packers even though you tangibly radiate disinterest.
Please, everyone, stop with this. It is entirely fine if you do not personally prefer the Wii's games to the 360's. I know that I definitely prefer the 360's personally. However, it is unfortunate that you cannot even imagine that anyone else would feel differently.
Count Dookkake
Member
Liabe Brave said:
I am not proposing altering the definition of quality. Just give me the universally agreed upon list of requirements that a game needs to have met in order to be considered "quality."
This is not in the dictionary.
-fun
-realistic graphics
-visual flair
-originality
-expanding on tradition
-price
-etc
The debate is useless without a concrete definition.
SpokkX said:
But it's great for traditional gamers like me. 30 plus years of gaming and it just keeps getting better!
Liabe Brave said:
The example I often like to give to support this argument, Liabe, is to imagine a school teacher deciding to teach comic books instead of Shakespeare. Why not? Quality is entirely subjective, so a teacher who thinks comic books are better should teach what he or she prefers. I think most people, however, would object to this.
The consequence of absolute relativism is complete chaos. It isn't that "quality" is objective -- I believe you and I both agree it is, correct me if I'm wrong -- it's that allowing "quality" to be completely subjective destroys order entirely. If we would like to maintain any order at all, and as a civilization that is obviously in our best interest, then imposing some form of objectivity on an implicitly-understood subjective world is a correct choice.
As such, we define broad ideas of "quality" and accept them. Reasonable people can reasonably agree what "quality" is. Shakespeare is more intelligent and higher quality than Spawn comics #37, as a very clear example. If we do not accept this, then all judgements of all kind lose all meaning, which is very unhelpful.
jordan0386
Member
Wii has ruined us. NPD has turned into why is the Wii and its games doing well, rather than damn I wish so and so was selling well.
Same shit every month. How will we survive for the next 3 years, arguing the same points over and over.
Same shit every month. How will we survive for the next 3 years, arguing the same points over and over.
Cromat said:
Again, while I definitely prefer the 360's library to the Wii's, a game I like more than any game on either system is Go, which is a game with exactly 1 mechanic that could readily be emulated on an Atari 2600.
Again, your definitions are your own. Please stop trying to define what a true "gamer" is or what everyone on this forum wants. You do not speak for me, and you are being very self centered. Please stop.
Count Dookkake
Member
Opiate said:
Will someone please define these standards of quality for video games? Anyone.
Cromat said:
The external motive is gaming fun!
