By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wyrdness on 11 November 2017
Edit Thread
Wright said:
Wyrdness said:

As I said that's how your posts came across I just returned the same approach a core sign of what I pointed out is when the are no attacks posted yet someone starts complaining on the replies the way you did it signals the person is going off edge as a composed person wouldn't need to make such comments. When such posts are made it's very often to just undermine the argument with out making any argument themselves its a eye roll moment much like I tell anyone else if you think the is aggression it's in your head and you're most likely anticipating or looking for such a tone  to begin with believe me if I was aggressive you'd know I'd come out directly with it.

While I agree with the notion of undermining arguments by ad honimen attacks, I'm fairly sure pointing out your attitude toward me (which I also said I was giving you the benefit of doubt in regards to that at first, and you confirmed in the previous post that you were, indeed, with that attitude all along) is not something that diminished anything because I kept on quoting you separatedly to address the points one by one. There was never "anticipation" in my head; if anything, my only anticipation was hoping I could read huge posts from you where we both would examine the points provided. When you'd made a comment that, indeed, would stick out as aggresive, I'd call on it, but I wouldn't mix it up with the rest of the arguments provided.

The only point was that I indeed said we were getting nowhere, and all the effort I was putting into legit going through the sources and quoting them and examining the sentences I thought appropiated where easily ignored with "congratulations you debunked yourself" comments that didn't even have any reasoning behind them or any explanation that could point out to that fact in regards to what I had said about it, but just mere passing comments, which yeah, prompted the "frankly you're wasting my time". It doesn't help that the posts you made afterwards read as in you were trying to actively cause a negative reaction from me, as if it was one of your intentions.

But since we're getting stuck and redundant with it, I want to point out this:

Wyrdness said:

As I said that's how your posts came across

Then let me do something. If you really think this, then I'll apologize for it. It wasn't the intention, it was a satirical comment that I also explained on my posterior reply after you quoted me, but regardless of the nature of it, there's the apologies given. I don't attack people for their opinion, I'm just a fairly ironic guy and I guess it can come across as the wrong idea at times.

So I'm sorry for that.

 

Now there's this:

Wyrdness said:

On Hines it's cherry picking because one interview is of him on possibly supporting the Wii U a full year and a half before launch and the other is on support much later with specific projects, you highlighted hardware yes but he never actually says that's the only reason on top of what the issue is in particular which harks back to architecture which falls into the hardware issue category and the amount of work it may require which is costly this is something he said straight up in his first interview when he said its possible, this was still early in the Wii U's life when developers were struggling to optimise even games on 360 for it, Fallout 4 doesn't need to be mentioned we know it was in development it even originally started as a 360/PS3 game. He hasn't back peddled he's pretty much stayed with in what he said earlier and gave a straight answer on whether they're supporting the platform or not, Skyrim Switch also doesn't play any differently either minimal motion control doesn't change how a game is.

Let's just say I don't agree with the interpretation you give. Hines makes specifically a comment about the 360 being hardware that can't handle The Elder Scrolls Online. From where I see it, it means he's trying to explain games not coming to WiiU because WiiU can't handle it - but outside The Elder Scrolls Online, The Evil Within, Wolfenstein and Skyrim can all run on WiiU. After all, they do run on 360, and WiiU has certain advantages (except in CPU I think) over the 360, which means it truly can run them.

It can be seen as "it's too hard to work on it and ultimately means more money spent", but that's not the impression given by Hines. It reads simply as WiiU being not powerful enough to run those games. The author of the article also points out to the fact that Hines gives a reply unlike the other companies, such as EA, that don't put games on WiiU due to retail sales viability. At least for me, it reads as him backpedalling on his original "sales-oriented" comment.

Very well then lets start over.

Those games can run on Wii U sure but then it harks back to architecture again PS3/360/X1/PS4 all shared the same architectural type which meant when a game was being made for all platforms it was easier between the 4, hardware issue also doesn't mean power issue for example watchdogs on Wii U was atrocious and worse than the PS3 version even though the Wii U is more powerful due to developers not being as used to its architectural set up.

To me it comes across as more they looked into the Wii U found how hard it was to work with the hardware which was the issue and decided it wasn't viable even with the topic on how his view is interpreted he still gave a straight answer on whether the company will support the platform.