Global Hardware 23 December 2017

[DonFerrari]

Biggerboat1 said:

DonFerrari said:

1) Having a story and being narrative driven not being the same ok, but when you disconsider R&C as narrative driven you are wrong (and it isn't a Sony 1st party studio eitherway). Will wait for you to show that Nintendo gameplay first looks after isn't a common trait cohesive approach. Also Nintendo HW is developed with the underpower because Nintendo doesn't care as much for the graphical output as Sony and MS.

2) Nope, sorry Nintendo doesn't try to make games as pretty as possible, they try to do it as pretty as possible on their own line of development using cartoonish graphics that adhere to low power consumption. If they were really worried about graphics their system would have more power as well. And GC was the last gen Nintendo was at least caring as show as they stop developing the power of the system.

3) Have I said GT story is better than Zelda? Nope, you were the one trying to put Zelda as something that really have a story. And if you meant Zelda as being developed by Sony, HZD is selling way lower than Zelda while looking much better and having real story driven touch. But exactly what on your mind is Zelda under a different IP developed by Sony?

4) So you have been monitoring me, how strange for a 31 post count on a account with 1 month age... are you an alt by any chance? And nope you haven't really accept it, you think that someone disregarding the whole Nintendo IPs is because of uterior motives but don't think it is similar when Nintendo fanbase doesn't go and buy some 3rd parties at higher level than any Nintendo game on that genre.

5) It is simple as that: If there is a MP in a genre that is better than anything Nintendo offers there and it doesn't sell more than Nintendo games on that genre then it is clear that a good part of that userbase is dismissing all 3rd party games. You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. It's funny that you accuse me of not addressing your points when you are inventing points that weren't made when you "correct my understanding"

1) As established earlier - I'm talking about 1st & 2nd party titles. Hence the inclusion of F-zero GX, Xenoblade etc. Is R&C more narrative driven than your average Zelda, Metroid or Xenoblade? Because essentially that's what we're establishing here. If R&C or GT are not more narrative driven than the games I've listed then your assertion that Sony's games are narrative driven and Nintendo's aren't is false & and in actual fact would support my position of both companies offering varied libraries without a single ethos linking them.

2) You're conflating 2 different issues here - the hardware and software. Nintendo has made decisions on their recent HW based on a variety of reasons, the latest being that the Switch is a hybrid. Their software very much does take visuals seriously which is why their games look the best on their given systems. If they didn't care about visuals then why do their games regularly look better than most of the competition on their systems???

3) You stated that a common trait of Sony games are that they are narrative driven - you then call BOTW's story bland (so not meeting Sony's standards) - so the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that GT (and every other Sony game) has a better story than BOTW...

My guess is that Horizon is selling less than Zelda because it is by and large considered an inferior game - and review scores support this - you asked for evidence over opinions - well there you have it. Though tbh, I'm not interested in a BOTW vs Horizon debate - I'm sure I'd enjoy the 2nd a lot. The theoretical Zelda under Sony that I'm proposing would simply be new names/character models/and updated visuals to take advantage of the hardware - simples!

4) I used to visit the site regularly after the Wii launched but then fell off a couple of years after that - recently found myself back here when my interest was reignited by Switch. Over the last couple of months of generally lurking rather than posting I've noticed your tendency to tie an argument in knots by introducing random points and misinterpreting other's meanings. Nothing more suspicious than that.

For instance your assertion that a non-Nintendo game must outsell a Nintendo game within the same genre to prove that Nintendo fans are not biased... This makes no sense as generally Nintendo's offerings are of much higher quality - so... duh... You keep repeating this - how many times do I have to reply? Can you provide examples of where in your opinion a 3rd party title should have outsold a 1st/2nd?

5) If we're talking MP games - it makes sense that they sell better on other platforms as those who have access to multiple systems will buy them for the one which offers the best experience / framerate / visuals which is generally not Nintendo's version. Switch may change this as it offers portability in exchange of reduced fidelity, though I still think the majority will opt for the former.

"You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. "

Fair enough, I'll concede this point - was probably not needed - though overall I think you have me at around 20-1 on the irrelevant point scoreboard!

1) R&C is more story driven than Zelda that is a fact, know you want to put another 2 games to compare against it? I would like to see you prove to the Nintendo fanbase that Nintendo doesn't focus first on the gameplay and then they will look at graphics and story. Nintendo doesn't even look at voice acting for their games because that isn't the direction they are after.

2) Nope I'm not conflicting both. It is from the same company, so if they develop hardwares for 3 consecutive gens that aren't focused on putting as much power as possible and in fact are a lot less powerful than the consoles that were released at the same time (no need to just go for "but switch is hybrid" since this started before it) it already shows that Nintendo as a company doesn't have their main concern on graphics... go and look the assets, cost of production etc of Nintendo games against the AAA of industry and you'll see they invest a lot less. Their game will look better (on your opinion) than the ones from the competition for 2 reasons, the port had to be compromised to fit on a lot weaker HW and photorealistic graphics take a higher hit on it prettyness against cartoonish/cellshaded when going to lower power system.

3) Your logic must be quite crazy to assert that since I said Zelda story is bland it must mean GT story is better than it. Sorry to burst your bubble but Metacritic is not even considered an argument on VGC because of how bad it is as a system and critics giving a game a better score doesn't mean a game is better. Or do you think "Jorney" with a 92 is factually better than all but 4 games on WiiU? With only Zelda and Mario 3D (2 games) scoring higher than it

4) Yes no bias on thinking Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry... and if you had an account previously you are already admitting you are an alt.

5) I ain't saying that a game should sell on Switch as much as it sell on another platform or that a game in another platform must sell more than a Nintendo game on its own platform. What I'm saying is that when you pick a game that is considered the best of its genre and is multiplatform it will sell more than the platform holders on that system, but on Nintendo system it will sell less than what Nintendo is offering.

Racing genre - > Mario Kart, no multiplatform is even near that level (so no need to cherry pick F-Zero, because I didn't said no 3rd party games sell better than any Nintendo game in that genre. I said that the best seller multiplat would be lower than one Nintendo offering on that genre)

Wii Music - a failure and a single game on the genre so it's basically you trying to prove that there is some case.

RE4 - Are you considering it a terror game? And Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them.

RPG - DQ X doesn't even get near Zelda

Shooter - Link Crossbow Training (for crying out loud) have twice the sales of CoD 3

 

 

So I have done the work for you, per genre (as vgc classify them)

Action - Lego 5,7M versus Metroid Other M 1,36M (10th place) so in this category it would have 9 games over Metroid

Adventure - Zelda 7,18M vs Lego 3M

I usually consider action and adventure to be on the same genre, but not important.

Fighter - Smash 13M, Dragon Ball 1M

Misc (???) - WiiPlay 29M Just Dance 10M

Platformer - NSBW 28.5M Epic Mickey 3M

Puzzle - WarrioWare 3M Gameparty 1.7M

Racer - MKWii 35.8M Sonic 1.5M

RPG - Monster Hunter 2.2M Pokemon 1.6M (no idea why Zelda isn't here)

Shooter - Link crossbow 5M CoD 2.2M

Sim - Animal Crossing 4.6M Cooking Mama 2.9M

Sports - WiiSports 82.6M Mario&Sonic 8M

Strategy - Pikmin 0,6M Thriville 0,4M

 

That clearly show how Nintendo base isn't biased towards Nintendo and that the difference in sales is totally justifiable per quality difference, in some cases over 10x.

Do you need MS or Sony tables like this to see how it compares?