Nirvana_Nut85 said:
|
There is no discussion with you. Your lack of comprehension on the matters we discussed makes it difficult to maintain a reasonable argument. I wasn’t out to destroy your argument. It's not my fault that you did not provide a reasonable one.
Cars are not restricted to their design. We are in a generation where cars, electronics, ect no longer have to change much from previous iterations and look similar. Consumer demand is less focused on design and targeted towards functionality. Are vehicles restricted to their internal parts such as an engine, transmission, etc. For the time being, until technology advances, yes they are.Companies are currently focused on making ass little changes as possible by adding new features to increase profits. This is trend throught the majority of comapnies. If you had paid attention to what I was saying, previous generations did not apply restraints on the design or size of their vehicles.
Maybe in Japan you have limited road size but in North America, the width of the roads allows for numerous shapes and sizes of vehicles. If you're using a vehicle for off road purposes or on private property then you can basically design it and have it any shape or size that you feel like. Do most companies go for a generic design? Yes. Does that mean it is limited? No. You’re obviously not a car enthusiast or you would be able to see that your counter argument holds no merit and paints a picture that you really do not know what you are talking about. The following pictures I shall provide prove that there is not a limit to the design of vehicles.
   
 
I can provide alot more proof if need be be, but needless to say you were quite inaccurate with you false assumption on the design limitations of vehicles. I'm going to assume that due to you bull headedness you will still disagree but as I stated the pictures speak for themselves.
Insults? I would like you to refer to you previous ignorant comments in earlier posts. Before you attempt to pull the stick out of my eye, pull the log out of your own. Violence? Now your just being ridiculous. It seems you are try ing to create a scenario out of nothing, because your upset due to failing in every aspect of this debate. In no way, shape or form have I attempted to intimidate. How you've managed to misconstrue my words is your own problem, not mine.
|
The highest insult I could do to you is stupid? If I really wanted tp insult you I would have created a thread dedicated too your ignorance. Talking about disability, I've never said derrogatory remarks in that nature that is horrible !
Anyway, you have hard time to understand the concept of proof. You prove there is a large variety of designs, not that there is no constraints in design. The constraints I talked about are safety, cost, consumption, design cost, and public conservatism. That constraints are the reason why the car you show are not for sale, private car designs, or not mainstream. Again, my question to a car designer : "Do you have any constraint on your car design ?". "No, I don't have a single one, I can design it in the shape of shit, and build it with dust, and forget that most people want 4 seats and that's fine". You can't fail to understand your mistake, come on ! You can show pictures of 5 different animals, gravity is still there. Allo ?
And it certainly do not change the fact that the Wii U wouldn't have had benefit for a better logo, drop the cheap plastic box to sell a more expensive device, and make a new design that put more emphasis on the new console (because you are not selling an accessory). And that's pretty clear.
|
You've attempted to label my responses as stupid without having a factual argument to prove your assertion. I compared your analysis in the same category as someone who is disabled. That's not horrioble, it is blunt.
You claim I have a hard time understanding concepts and designs by giving your own opinions of my ideas instead of backing it up with facts. All I have done is provided you with facts to which "I" have had to deal with your ignorance each time after.My statement provided the design of cars. Did I limit it to those that travel roads or highways? NO. So therefore you are the ass for assuming without asking. Cars, vehicles do not have constraints. The majority follow North American concepts, not Asian. You bring up the concept of animals while ignoring the fact that they are living beings. I am trhying to be nice by not disecting each incorrect statement but your pushing me topwards the edge on this one.
Your reasonng is idiotic if you do not think that the console sold as Wii 2 would not have garnered higher sales than Wii U. I''ll provide the broken record response and advise you to read the articles.
|
I read it, they state the product to be late, and confusion problems, including, but not exclusive (marketing, bad explanations, sellers awarness) to the name. No link you provide is stupid enough to say wii 2 would have sold twice as much and would be currently ahead of the race. They don't really talk about the product quality either, so the links state problems (including the name), but don't put in balance. They are not really about telling all of sudden "and design matters", but are not telling either "the product is good, it's not the problem", even if Iwata is strongly implying that (but he doesn't even talk about the name).
Anyway, your point is that mainstream car (who have to be on the road) have repetitive design, but it's not because of constraints. Proof is that car that does not have the constraint to be on road have a large variety of form. That's my point ! You remove this constraint, and you have a lot more designs. Think again. It's getting funny, explain again ?
Your idea of proof is totally wrong, I tell you. It's not even a false syllogism, it's more something like "If A doesn't do B and is successful, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". Apple don't change the design, then Apple proves changing the design is insignificant, including for the wii U. Then you think if you add one more A, like cars, you have one more proof. You add lots of A, simple A, pictures of A, you have so many proofs and you fail to understand, you get pissed of. But the logical connection you imply is wrong. For example the following sentence is still not a proof, but would be about as strong and more than enough for me: "Steve Jobs and multiple designers/companies said design changes are irrelevant, here are the links". You have a lot of other wrong proof system, I could explain it if you want, I can tell you I studied logic and use it quite a lot. That's what I labelled as stupid, but I really thought you did it on purpose. Try to make other sentences based on "If A doesn't do B, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". You'll see, you can prove about anything.
Your point about living beings is not explained, so I will not make assumptions. I'm just telling a great variety doesn't imply the absence of constraint, which makes sense. Also, "asian concept" (I'm french by the way, living in Tokyo), no clue what you try to imply, or if it's related. I hope it's not something like "asian concept of lively things", because you would be making 3 mistakes with 1 sentence.
I'm not even sure denigrate someone by asking if is disabled is legal in my country. I think it's quite shocking both in Japan and France.
