Nintendo -V- 3rd Parties

[impertinence]

DerNebel said:

impertinence said:

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?

First of all, cut out the whole "english isn't your first language, so I'll talk to you like an idiot"-bullshit, I understand you very well. Second, no matter how you twist and turn it, your initial statement still will not become true.

As soon as you cut out the "you're just a teenager so your arguments are stupid"-bullshit, champ. If you understand the words I am saying very well, then you fail to understand the concept since you continue to misrepresent it.

You could argue that Nintendo is the most successful first party, that is something that can be easily quantified, but best as in "they make the best games" is something that can simply not be objectively decided, you cannot put an universally true grade on something like game quality, it is not possible.

 

Also their is only one answer to the question "Who's the best German footballer ever?": Walter Frosch.

This is why I am not talking about game quality but about what game developer is the best in the world. In general, those kinds of statements are always open for debate, but in some cases something is actually the best. I've given you examples from the sports world, but they exsist in many other areas as well. This might come as a surprise to you, but you're not the first to think they've come across some sort of deep understanding when they think that quality is subjective therefor nothing can be objectivly better than anything else. The error in this thinking is that it tries to apply scientific rigor to a non scientific question. It doesn't matter that you say Walter Frosch is the best German footballer of all time, it's objectivly wrong even if it's your opinion (which it is not, but I appreciate the humor).

If you are interested in following the logical conclusion of your stance here, the word 'best' no longer has meaning (outside of explaining your own preferences) and by extention the words 'better' and 'good'. As you can see, it also extends to all other comperative adjectives and yoohoo nothing can be compared to anything else. No one can say that pizza tastes better than a carpet. No one can say that getting murdered is worse then winning the lottery because somewhere in the world there's a moron who would prefer to die.

This way of thinking is immature and gets stuck in trying to apply absolute standards to nonabsolute entities. To make a call on which one of two complex entities that are best requires that the mind take into consideration many different factors and weighs their importance and also applies reasonable general standards (meaning you don't judge the taste of a carpet based on how long lasting it is and score it above pizza for example). And yes, people will have different criteria for what they find important, and so it will often be very difficult to determine if something is acctually better than something else. Pele vs. Maradonna for example, you can't make a reasonable definite claim that one is better than the other. Beckenbauer vs. Frosch, you can. Gretzky vs. Lemieux, you can. Ubisoft vs EA, you can't, Nintendo vs. everybody else you can. Anyone who puts aside personal preference and look objectivly at all the elements that goes into being a great game developer will see the same thing, because it is a fact. Nintendo is so dominant on so many different axis of videogame development that to claim they are not the best in that craft is like saying Frosch is better than Beckenbauer. 

tl;dr: Nintendo is the best videogame developer in the world.