Global Hardware 23 December 2017

[Biggerboat1]

DonFerrari said:

Biggerboat1 said:

1) why did your answer only focus on R&C and not GT? I'll concede the point that R&C is more story driven than Zelda (I already said that I wasn't overly familiar with the game). Qwark, above also listed LBP & Driveclub as having less of a story than Oddysey, never mind BOTW. So really, my point stands. As usual you deliberately avoid the overall point just to score a few pedantic points.

2) I already said that there are many reasons why Nintendo have gone the way they have with HW - this debate has already grown too many arms and legs. Bottom line is that they've always maxed out the hardware they've developed on. I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this one so let's just leave it.

3) My logic is fine - you asserted BOTW couldn't be a Sony game because it had a bland story. GT is a Sony game which, as you pointed out has a story mode. Conclusion GT's story meets Sony's standards of storytelling & BOTW doesn't. What is proving difficult for you to understand here...? Unless you're now conceding that GT's story is weak, which then destroys your main theory that all Sony games are based on a central tenet of story-telling...

There will always be outliers and exceptions on Metacritic / Opencritic but to suggest that there isn't a high correlation with score and quality is beyond belief. Tell you what - I'll play 10 random games from the 90+ category & you can play 10 random titles from the <50 bracket and we'll see who comes out the happier - according to you, we each have a 50-50 chance... Probably one of the most misguided things I've seen written here...

4) Here we go again - where did I say "Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry..." - I didn't say this and I don't believe that. 

5) I stated before that your premise of trying to find 3rd party titles that sell better than 1st/2nd party titles on a Nintendo system is flawed - but I thought I'd throw out a few examples just for the hell of it. I don't agree on the categories that vgchartz splits games into, but I did site examples of games that I thought were similar enough to meet your 3rd > 1st/2nd party sales . Why the those examples have to beat ALL Nintendo games in the genre rather than just some, I don't get. But then there's a lot I don't get about your rationale.

Bottom line is that the sales reflect game quality - which is the only real bias any of us should have. Why quality isn't dictating sales to the same extent on the other systems I couldn't tell you - the transformers movies have a bigger box office than films like Blade Runner 2049 or Ex Machina - go figure...

"Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them." 

I clearly stated SEVERAL TIMES that we're discussing 1st/2nd party.

Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe three different forms of game development studios:

1. Independently owned studios who take development contracts from the platform holders and produce games exclusive to that platform.^[7]
2. Studios that are partially or wholly owned by the platform holder (also known as a subsidiary) and produce games exclusive to that platform.^{[citation needed]}
3. Companies that make video game consoles, but also make games on other platforms.

  

 

  

1) That is me avoiding to use the same adjectives than you. If you didn't noticed that I said GT had a "story" in the sense of career progression and not a story driven aproach blame yourself.

2) Nope they have the same philosophy on art direction on Switch as they had on GC, they aren't going anyday soon start focusing on photo realistic graphics. Seem like you have just avoided the discussion.

3) No I haven't said BOTW couldn't be a Sony game, unless you can read minds on things that weren't even thought. And nope also didn't say all sony games are based on story telling, I said the cohesion between their games focus on graphics, cinematics and story driven narratives, one outlier on not focusing entirely on telling a story directly proves nothing.

How reaching can you get that you want to compare a 90+ with a sub 50 (that there isn't even many to even look at) to accept that Metacritic doesn't define if a game is good or not?

4) So if you don't believe they are better, then why do they dominate the multiplats on their system if not by the bias of the userbase?

5) Eternal Darkness have games released for other platforms, so how do you classify that as 2nd party is beyong me, also it isn't the best selling on its category, but you decided to make your own genre classification to win the argument.

The premise is flawed because you want to create a narrative that disregarding the entire Nintendo catalogue is biased and hatred, but Nintendo fanbase buying Nintendo games over multiplats on about all genres Nintendo have made a game isn't bias... so please explain to me how Link Crossbow is better than CoD 3.

1) You just don't get it... You said that if Zelda was a Sony game it would be criticised for it's weak story, yet Sony released GT which has a weaker story than BOTW - your logic is broken. Qwark also listed LBP & Driveclub as having less story than Odyssey, never mind BOTW. If they can be successful Sony games then so can Zelda. How about WipEout Omega Collection, or Patapon Remastered or Singstar...?

Anyway, I'm done with this part of the debate - the facts are staring you in the face - if you don't want to accept that then it's up to you.

2) On GC, Nintendo released Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Wave Race: Blue Storm, the Metroid Prime games, 1080° Avalanche & NBA Courtside 2002 - a completely different, and probably by your definition, more 'mature' artstyle to Mario/Kart/Smash etc.

3) It's not one outlier - I have given you other examples.

"How reaching can you get that you want to compare a 90+ with a sub 50 (that there isn't even many to even look at) to accept that Metacritic doesn't define if a game is good or not?"

I don't actually understand what your point is here. You said that metacritic can't be used as evidence of a game's quality... So a 90+ game vs a <50 games should have the same chance at being a good/great/bad game. I'm demonstrating how flawed your argument is by taking it to it's logical conclusion.

4) I said that I didn't agree with your claim that I thought "Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry...". I do believe however that in general on Nintendo systems that Nintendo's offerings are better quality. Those 2 views to not conflict so what is your problem?

5) "In 2000, Silicon Knights was signed by Nintendo to create games exclusively for its consoles, during which time it produced Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Together with Nintendo, Silicon Knights worked with Konami to create Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. In 2004, the company ended exclusivity with Nintendo. In 2005, it partnered with publisher Microsoft Game Studios for Too Human, though Nintendo still owned stock in the company." Producer(s): Shigeru Miyamoto, Satoru Iwata, Kenji Miki

You are simply wrong.

My classification has Eternal Darkness going up against Resident Evil 4 - yours/VGchartz's has Pikmin up against Thrillville & Animal Crossing competing with Cooking Mama... riiiiigggghhhhhttt...

Though even by your own questionable acceptance of Vgchartz very arbitrary system of cataloguing games you had:

RPG - Monster Hunter 2.2M Pokemon 1.6M

Action - Lego 5,7M versus Metroid Other M 1,36M

So you actually passed your own challenge - congratulations :)

And Link's crossbow training was not a full-priced game and came with the zapper peripheral at the point that the motion control phase was in full swing on the Wii. It was more of a proof of concept than a game and I think most people bought it to experience what the new dawn of motion control would be like. So not really a fair comparison...

Plus they also really don't belong in the same genre of games. Crossbow training should be in amongst the mini-game stuff, if anywhere.