The truth about Nintendo

[Final-Fan]

Zod95 said:

Final-Fan said:

1.  I wasn't ignoring the realistic aspects—I was arguing that they were not, in fact, as realistic as you were claiming they were.  As for big/small being subjective and therefore something you're not going to discuss, why don't we just say that no two video games are exactly the same and therefore nothing can be determined?  Also, 'design goal' isn't what I meant by philosophy.

No, you talked about other aspects (lack of damage on characters, etc.), you didn't refute mine (real fighting techniques, etc.).

I will not say nothing can be determined because actually it can. Only on this forum people have shown such a hate for the OP (because it severely criticizes Nintendo) that they've become obsessed at refuting anything that was there to the point that neutral arguments became "bias" and facts became "blatant lies". With this kind of soldiers, there's no truth that can "survive".

Ultimately (and we've already got there), anything can be viewed as an opinion, not a fact. You can think about any general statement you could make regarding Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. Take the time you need. Pick the one that you think to be undeniable. I can say in advance (without knowing what it is) that it's an opinion, not a fact. And, using the same "argumentative weapons" as people here have been using, I can show it.

Now imagine this ultra-phylosophical mindset dominating journalism, science and other areas. It would kill them. People are not being reasonable and they know it. They are just protecting Nintendo at all costs.

Final-Fan said:

2.  I think common sense is that human beings have been singing for as long as we have been able to communicate, if not even earlier.  This, in my opinion, probably predates the origin of artificially created instruments, and, in my opinion, when those instruments were created, they were used to accompany singing.  In that case, instrumental + vocal would predate instrumental only.  Where in this line of thinking do you disagree?

See my reply to MDM: "I'm talking about music as an established form of art, which began to be instrumental-only.".

Final-Fan said:

Also, instrumental-only music often, and unsurprisingly, has more complexity in the instrumental music than instrumental + vocal does in only the instrumental portion of that music.  So doesn't this undermine what you are saying about complexity?  And how about the fact that both "I" and "I+V" music have been around for centuries or millennia, "evolving" on their own before being applied to video games?  Doesn't that also make it a bit silly to argue about which one is more evolved than the other?

How can you claim it has more complexity? Why don't you say that's just your opinion?

History of Music is one of several arguments to show evolution, of course it's not enough by itself.

Final-Fan said:

3.  There's a pretty big flaw in that, but I don't want to completely derail the conversation, so for that reason I do not want to continue down this road.  (But if you are too curious, then it is regarding the fact that all companies are motivated by profit, and you are just assuming that Nintendo's products aren't high quality because you can't see it vs. the other products you like more or 'can perceive the remarkable achievements of more easily' (<-not an actual quote).)

I'm not assuming they aren't high quality because my focus isn't on quality but commitment to it (remember our conversation on the Unity thread?). Commitment is easier to perceive through objective variables like effort, time and money.

1.  No, I said, essentially, 'yes, they may emulate real fighting techniques, but they also have ridiculous crap like Ivy's chain sword etc.', which segues into a more general point about the relative levels of realism in both games.  But even concentrating on just the fighting techniques, I ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS, and you just dismissed it. 

As for the MDM challenge:  "Nintendo has made more profit off of games than Sony or Microsoft." 

I also have a bonus challenge in mind, but it's only for after you're completely done fulfilling your challenge on the above statement.  "The fact that Nintendo is completely reliant on video game sales as a company suggests it has more at stake concerning the well-being and future of the video game industry than either Microsoft or Sony, and therefore more reason to care about it." 

2a.  First, when do you say music became an "established form of art", and what is your evidence for that claim?  Second, where is your evidence that instrumental music predates V+I music in the "established art" form? 

As for me, I would expect that both of them have been "established forms of art" since practically the dawn of civilization, or at least of comparable antiquity, along with vocal-only art.  But I will not claim this is actually the case based only on my guess, never mind that it's an educated guess. 

2b.  I didn't base that assertion on my opinion of those types of music, but rather logic.  Consider: 
–Since I+V music is, in fact, I PLUS V, doesn't it stand to reason that if you take out all the complexity in the V part, the I-only remains will be likely to be less complex than I-only music that still has all of its complexity and was DESIGNED to be complete by itself while the I-minus-V music wasn't? 
–Doesn't it stand to reason that the more components are in something, the more complexity can be achieved?  Nintendo's orchestral music would therefore have much more potential complexity than a rock band with less than a dozen people in it (including the singer). 

3.  Dammit.  The same thing applies:  you don't perceive the COMMITMENT of Nintendo.  Do you honestly think it's cheap to hire an entire ORCHESTRA?!  No, this is too distracting.  Never mind.