runqvist said:
That sounds good. Let's not take anything out of context. When you do that, you will notice that there is no strawman argument from me, I have merely replied to one of your "points". Let's argue that one and I will go step by step so that you keep the goalposts still.
Starting with the part of your post: Where I see the sales falling short is the elitest graphic-whore gamer who previously bought the Wii to try it out, and then spent 5 years complaining that it was collecting dust while refusing to buy good games on the system.
Here is my original reply to you: A game being good is all about personal preference. Maybe there is a possibility that those people just don't see any wii games as good games? Unpossimple I say!
Which you replied: If you're unwilling to try a game how do you know it is no good?
Reply from me: Well you are the one who said something about graphic whores, one could assume that you can get a pretty good picture by looking at a screenshot? Don't you think so?
Then you decided to change the goalpost by: The Wii sold to many technophiles back in the day because the Wiimote was a flashy piece of technology and lots of people wanted to try it.
and when I confronted you about moving goalposts, you put two of your arguments together: No, I haven't changed my goal posts, you're just using a straw man argument because there is no way you can claim that the tech obsessed graphics whore gamer is really buying into the Wii U the way they bought into the Wii.
When the original argument was about wii games being good for some group, you have a small job now.
As I know that you like to move the goalposts, I'll make this simple as possible. Which of Wii games meet the following criteria: 1) It has to appease a graphic whore. As I am a fair person, I will set the par with a 2006 game. You know, the wii launch year. I will also be fair and leave out pc gaming. For a console graphic whore in 2006, Gears of war would be something they liked. From 2006 to 2013, any wii game that is on par with gears will do. 2) As a techwhore, those people are also interested in games which will use the tech as advertised.No dumb waggle controls which only replace a button.
So the good games should meet those two criteria by your definition. What are those good games for the gamer group you defined? Protip: "it looks good for a wii game" will not do.
*cues the crickets* |
1) Please explain how tech obsessed gamers is a different group than graphic whore gamers
2) Stop with the Straw Man argument and answer the question, are these tech obsessed gamers and graphic whore gamers buying the Wii U at a similar rate that they bought the Wii at?
You can't win this argument so you're focused at trying to win an insignificant point, that is called a straw man. Graphics whores are tech obsessed because they don't care for artistic style or merit, it is simply about which game uses the most advanced technology; and the tech obsessed gamers are graphics whores because they don't care about any technical advancement outside of producing more realistic graphics and effects. They are the same group.
Edit: If Graphics whores cared about style, they would have loved the look of Super Mario Galaxy or Kirby's Epic Yarn but instead they were thrilled by the generic brown "realistic" HD graphics. If tech obsessed gamers were interested in advancement outside of graphics they wouldn't be talking about how the Wii U was a "previous generation" console because rushed ports of previous generation games looked like previous generation games, and they would be interested in the technological advancement the Wii U tablet represents
