Nintendo -V- 3rd Parties

[impertinence]

DerNebel said:

impertinence said:

I wonder how long before Intrinsic decides to call you out for not understanding what an opinion is? My guess is never since you guys seem to be in agreement that it is somehow detrimental to your world view to aknowledge the fact that Nintendo is the best videogame developer in the world.

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim there are a number of reliable sources for measurable data about the videogame industry. Pick anyone you'd like: total sales, profits, number of titles, critical reception. If you had any interest in actually challenging your own narrow view of how the world must be, you'd already know by now that regardless of metric there is no (meaningful) way to claim that someone other than Nintendo is the best videogame developer in the world. This isn't even touching on the (harder to quantify) metrics of cultural impact and influence.

Your objective data is completely arbitrary to the question who is the best game developer

Sales and profit: Well I guess Angry Birds, Candy Crush and Wii Sports are the best games in existence. Also to get away from the games industry for a second, I guess Tyler Perry is on of the best directors out there, cause he makes some most money with his films.

Number of titles: Whoop-de-do they've made a lot of games, that naturally means that they must be the best.

Critical Reception: The developer with the highest average on Metacritic I believe is ND and even if it's someone else (it's certainly not Nintendo) then that still would be nothing but aggregated opinions of people.

Also it's hilarious how you try to color my world view as the narrow one here, while you, as is typical for a teenager of your age,  are dead set on your point being the right one. Face it, your statement is wrong and will always be wrong, there is no scientifically right way to quantify something like "best developer", cause that is always a matter of opinion.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the confusion comes down to language differences. You seem to be thinking I am using the scioentifc meaning of 'fact', perhaps my insistance on objective measurrements is what have lead you in this direction, but in English a fact can mean more than a scientific fact. For example, an event or a thing that is true. Something that has happened, or as I am using it, a conclusion that follows reasonably from observations.

Let me try to put this into terms you might understand better. If I say "Franz Beckenbauer is the best German footballer ever", this can not be considered a fact (although it is pretty close). People can make semi-reasonable arguments for Gerd Müller or Rummenigge, maybe even Lothar Matthäus or even Mirosalv Klose. If I say Beckenbauer is the best German defender of all time then we are getting much closer to what I am describing as a fact. I am sure that you know at least one person who will claim that Phillip Lahm is better than Beckenbauer, and that would be their opinion and as an opinion it can't be wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that Beckenbauer by any reasonable comparison is a better and more important defender. It will still be an accepted fact that Beckenbauer is the best German defender no matter what your uninformed friend thinks.

In the case of Nintendo vs everybody else the seperation is even clearer than in my example. If you follow hockey substitute with Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux in my example above.

As for the rest of your post that is worth responding to: Of course the metrics are arbitrary, I've basically said so myself, the point is no matter what metrics you use the conclusion remains the same. That is the whole point, and that's why I don't hesitate to call it a fact, because Nintendo really is that dominant. And yes, if we remove subjective taste out of the equation, a lot of highly accessible music movies etc will also climb on the 'best ever' lists in their field. So what?