CGI-Quality said:
I'm guessing this is a stab at me, and while it's flattering (and also further exposes what appears to be your continued inner bitterness), I'll bite anyway: The description "fun" is no different than calling something "good", "bad", or "dumb". What you may not see as fun, others might. It doesn't make what you like any more fun than something else. The idea of something that is "art" is also subjective, but I'd be here all day trying to explain why / why not something is / isn't art. In fact, one has to wonder why an "artistic expression" couldn't be considered fun. No other type of game invalidates an experience like Heavy Rain. Going back to your topic, seems you only want to talk about one side that leads and innovates, but you're expressing a distaste with a certain sector of the gaming population, and in so doing, minimize that both Microsoft and Sony have lead and brought their own innovations in different ways (even if you half-heartedly admit it). To the extent of Nintendo, maybe, maybe not, as was said in The Terminator: "the future is not set" (and nobody can deny the biggest impact on any hardware this gen came in the form of the Wii-mote), but your misunderstood fire towards "particular experiences / gamers" and fingers-in-ears attitude to logical objection demonstrates some of the very double standards that make this a debate in the first place. |
If you think that you are on my mind when Heavy Rain is mentioned by me, it will only be maybe now. My issues with Heavy Rain are beyond you. It is just something I reached for, because it hardly qualifies as a game. It qualifies as interactive fiction. I could of gone with L.A Noire here instead, but that can be argued to be more of a game. My shot goes far deeper than that, and you read what I write, youy should detect one of my trends and beefs, which is that the videogame industry so badly wants to be taken more seriously as "artists" and have their award shows be treated with respect. With all this comes a dozen other things, and a focus on development that isn't game related. And yes, you can say that makes me favor Nintendo more. Reason why is Nintendo is first and foremost a game company, as opposed to Microsoft which is a software company and Sony which is a hardware company.
So, about this, my focus on innovation and leadership had to with the videogame industry as a whole, and what is being done in the console front, by the three console makers. This is an area they control, the way Apple does hardware also. And with this, I had been arguing, a different point than the one you are now upset about, that on the hardware front, Nintendo is the only one showing leadership and innovation among the three. The other two are following Nintendo's lead. Only place where maybe you ding Nintendo is on the U's Pro controller, because it ends up being like what both Sony and Microsoft came out with.
