Currently Online 
DonFerrari said:
So your understanding of the cohesion having those points is that all games have all of them? You are really pushing. But even so GT have the career mode that basically tells the "story" of you progressing from an Amateur to a top driver. But the graphical presentation is aligned with the others. R&C is totally cinematic and story driven, LBP also holds those modes. Last Guardian is story driven even if it doesn't have a lot of text/voice. Nope, the focus of Nintendo isn't graphic at all, the games are polished and look pretty but they don't push graphics, that is clear to everyone. Their focus is on the gameplay aspects. If Zelda was released on Sony it wouldn't have all the praises Nintendo fan give it, it would be a weak graphical game, the story would be bland, etc... When you are ready to accept that as much as there are people that disregard all Nintendo games there are those that do for all 3rd parties, Sony and MS. Some had the balls to say PS4 right now doesn't have at least 5 games that are must play while Switch on its second month had 10 already (and still self named Sony fanboy). So please go away with your narrative that non-Nintendo are biased against Nintendo, but you and others Nintendo fans are unbiased, evaluating only on the merits of the game. |
Just because a game has a story doesn't mean that it's narrative driven. Nearly all of the Nintendo games I mentioned have a story / story mode - but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the game's narration being the central consideration around which everything else is built - not just that it has a beginning, middle and end. You either don't get this or you don't want to get this.
And I didn't say all games have all of the traits that you're saying that Sony games have - I said - "do you know how many studios that would apply to?" - implying many studios - so obviously not all games - please read more carefully. And even if there are many studios that hold those traits in common, it doesn't mean that they all execute them as well as Sony, some do, some don't - but that's a different argument.
Re. Nintendo & visuals - go to any of Nintendo's platform and pick out the best looking games available on any of those systems - guess what, the majority are developed by Nintendo. They do make a point of making the games as beautiful as possible, it's simply the case that in recent history they've been constrained by the companies choice of hardware. The reason's for this choice is another subject entirely.
Look at the last generation in which the 3 hardware makers had rough parity in terms of power - GC/Xbox/PS2 - Metroid Prime 2, F-Zero GX, hell even Starfox Adventures, to name a few, could go toe-to-toe with any game on the competing systems in terms of visuals.
Re. Zelda under a different IP developed by Sony - again, please read! I specifically said "If Zelda had been released as a Sony IP, with visuals befitting the PS4" - so your point about it being a weak graphical game are, again, misplaced. And a bland story... So you're telling me that GT's story mode is better than BOTW - come now...
"So please go away with your narrative that non-Nintendo are biased against Nintendo, but you and others Nintendo fans are unbiased, evaluating only on the merits of the game."
Again, you're simply being reductive & simplistic in your conclusions just to accomodate an outraged response. I have never said Non-Nintendo fans are biased. I'm happy for many consoles to exist and for many gamers to choose whichever they prefer. What I've said is that I believe that people who lazily write off Nintendo's catalogue of games as not for them are most likely holding some form of bias. I'm not asking everyone to own or even play Nintendo games, I'm asking them not to have the ignorance to write of a collection of games (which vary in every category) based on what they think they are like. And I'm more than willing to accept that there are biased Nintendo fans out there.
I've noticed that you get involved quite a lot in endless back and forths on this forum & the reason is because you don't actually argue the other person's points. You argue with the points you want them to have made. There's no point in writing a retort to a point that wasn't actually made or deliberately missing the point that they're actually trying to make in order to be pedantic.
If you look back at our discussion, you'll see that half the time has been spent by me correcting you on what you are interpretting me to have said.
Not sure if it's a deliberate move on your part, if it's not, then please see this as some constructive feedback.
