The_Liquid_Laser said:
You made a long thoughtful post with some good points. However, I can tell by these first two words that you missed the context of what I was talking about. Let me back up and provide some context. Go back to Rol's table in his first post. If you are like me, then it probably is not entirely clear what some of his terms mean immediately, and you might also wonder why he put some systems into certain categories. After getting a couple of replies from him, I realized that he is using the terms "arcade" and "accessible" interchangeably. For example in one previous post he said, "I've said it multiple times before, a complete version of such a table would include handheld consoles. I can tell you where Nintendo's handhelds would be placed: GB/C, GBA and DS would all be Arcade Evolution, because those were the games those handhelds were about." Does the DS really represent arcade gaming though? It has a touch screen and stylus. This kind of control scheme is pretty similar to how a mouse works. With a mouse you might scroll your cursor onto some icon and click on it, and that is pretty similar to tapping your stylus on an icon on a touchscreen. The DS controls are actually a move toward the PC direction compared to the GBA. Also there were some top selling DS games like Brain Age and Nintendogs which used a stylus a lot like how a person might play these games with a mouse. The DS is definitely an accessible system, but it is also a move toward PC gaming compared to the GBA. However, Rol says the DS and GBA are equally arcade-like, because he is using the terms "arcade" and "accessible" interchangeably. Now the systems we were actually comparing were not the DS and GBA. We were comparing the Wii and the Switch. Rol has both of these in his "arcade evolution" category, because he thinks they are both equally accessible. I don't think these two systems are equally accessible. I don't think the Switch has any really popular game that is accessible as Wii Sports. Now you, or anyone else, are free to disagree with me. Maybe you think the Switch is just as accessible as the Wii or even more accessible. However, at least now I hope you know the context of what I was talking about. |
Gotta admit, I'm a bit irked. Cause this feels a bit evasive, and I feel I wasted my time in replying.
There isn't any context I missed or misunderstood. I generally find semantic argument about labels, such as what counts as arcade or not to be incredibly dull and pointless. If two people agree on terms, then that's all that matters. So, while I understand your discussion about arcade vs accessibility, I did not respond to that part.
The question of where Switch sales likely came from is a question that can be answered with facts, data, and logic, and is one that I thought might be worth discussing. That's the point I chose to comment on. Whether the Switch sales came from the PS4 and Xbox 1 as you stated is a factual claim that stands on its own independent of any context. The Switch sales came from the PS4 or they did not, and what Rol means by "arcade evolution" is completely irrelevant to that point. Whether the Switch is as accessible as the Wii is at best tangentially related to the claim.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this was not an attempt to be evasive. So, kindly answer these yes or no questions.
1. Did you say "these "new" sales the Switch is getting are not coming from the Wii. The extra sales are coming from the PS4 and XB1 crowd"?
2. Was my post responsive to this claim? I.e. did it propose reasons why we either should or should not accept that claim?
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then you should either explain why my counterargument is not sound, or concede that the extra sales are not likely from the PS4 crowd. Alternatively, you can say "I'm not going to defend the point, and you wasted your time replying". But, don't tell me that I somehow "missed the context" when I am directly addressing a claim you made.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 01 April 2021
