runqvist said:
HappySqurriel said:
runqvist said:
Going from this:
"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."
to this:
"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. While the Wii U system itself may be more advanced than the Wii was, the tablet controller is less of a flashy piece of technology and fewer of these tekkies are rushing out to buy the system."
It is a clear case of moving goalposts. First you claim that people who only cared about graphics are the problem and then you say that the people who wanted wii for its innovative controller were the problem. Bravo, my good man. I'll consider this discussion to be forfeited. Have a nice day.
|
Try not to take quotes out of context ...
In both cases I'm referring to the tech obsess graphics whore gamer who saw the Wii controller as a flashy piece of technology. I'm sure everyone (except you) understands that.
Are you claiming that these gamers are buying the Wii U in the same numbers as the Wii, or are you continuing with your dishonest straw man argument?
|
I just knew you would reply, that is nice. I like when people try to stick with their argument.
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*
|
