On the contrary, i'm pretty sure he's going to make quite a detailed rebuttal. Mummelmann obviously have quite some knowledge and know how to debate properly. He and John Lucas go way back, and Mummelmann offers a real challenge.

But the thing is: HOW is he going to respond to that?  This time it's admittedly very difficult ... it seems that they got him ... Well, I linked this post on his wall. Hope he will SOMEHOW react as soon as possible! Ignoring is no way out anymore ;) He should do something :O

Talking about Unity, I found a very interesting information at their website about the compute shaders

As you recall, compute shaders are listed in the wii u sdk specs taken from an early development kit, and well, things like multi threaded rendering (a new feature in directx11 and opengl 4.xx) have been confired thanks to project cars builds, but this info should prove to be even  more interesting

here, this is very interesting

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Manual/ComputeShaders.html

"

Compute Shaders

Compute Shaders are programs that run on the graphics card, outside of the normal rendering pipeline. They can be used for massively parallel GPGPU algorithms, or to accelerate parts of game rendering. In order to efficiently use them, often an in-depth knowledge of GPU architectures and parallel algorithms is needed; as well as knowledge of DirectCompute, OpenCL or CUDA.

Compute shaders in Unity are built on top of DirectX 11 DirectCompute technology; and currently require Windows Vista or later and a GPU capable of Shader Model 5.0.

Compute shader assets

Similar to normal shaders, Compute Shaders are asset files in your project, with *.compute file extension. They are written in DirectX 11 style HLSL language, with minimal amount of #pragma compilation directives to indicate which functions to compile as compute shader kernels.

"

From the updates i have read around, wii u is receiing the Unithy 4 pro engine which will have all the features found in the Unity 4.x

http://nintendoeverything.com/details-from-nintendos-unity-gdc-2013-session/

"

Details from Nintendo’s Unity GDC 2013 session

"

There seems to be a game that will coe to PC, Wii U and ps4 using the Unity 4 Engine

http://playeressence.com/dreamfall-chapters-the-longest-journey-confirmed-for-wii-u/

"

Nintendo approached us last autumn, immediately after Dreamfall Chapters was announced – they were, in fact, the first console manufacturer to do so. At that point, however, we weren’t ready to make any commitments regarding engine and platforms, so we decided to wait. We got back in touch with Nintendo in late May of this year, and they were very interested in working with us.”

The studio has just received its first Wii U dev kit, and is still in the process of getting the game up and running on Wii U. It is aiming to release Dreamfall Chapters on Nintendo’s home console complete with Gamepad functionality. “So far, they’ve been very helpful and supportive, and it’s been a painless and surprisingly rapid process.

"

cant wait

I agree with a lot of the things you are saying, and I disagree with a lot of it too. I'll leave it to John Lucas to respond since the post is directed at him, but I wanted to aknowledge the contribution. That's the type of on topic rebutal I was calling for, ask and you shall recieve I guess.

Now the gauntlet is down for you Seece: How about you post something in this thread that is worth reading twice?

The definition you provide is only one definition of quality, and not the most appropriate for applying to a video game.  A game isn't like a nut or bot, to be judged by having the same size and shape of threading as all the others so as to be interchangeable.  Photorealistic graphics (to give one example) isn't a necessary attribute of a good game and doesn't necessarily contribute to whether a game is good or not. 

At first I was disagreeing with your definition of quality.  And strictly speaking, I do.  But it seems to me that the point you're driving at in the first paragraph is that "quality" is "what gamers like to play", and that's something I can work with.  More on this later.  (If you disagree with that assessment, then perhaps you should look at the above text in strikethrough and see if it is a better response.) 

You say that reviewers sometimes give good scores to little-played games, which you appear to be claiming is a sign that the their reviews reflect an opinion of game "quality" (as defined above) not shared by most gamers, because all gamers have their own personal and different judgments of game quality.  Although technically speaking "consensus" in the sense of 100% agreement can't be achieved in judging game quality, I believe we certainly can and do have collective majority opinions which can be identified, and it's not slim majorities either.  Generally these judgments are hashed out among people who like the type or genre of game that is in question, i.e. people who only play FPSes will contribute to the collective judgment of FPSes and not, say, LittleBigPlanet. 

I understand your desire to do something a little more scientific, to try to identify certain measurable properties that games have, but the problem is that at the end of the day your objective is to tell how "good" the games are.  That is by definition a question of quality.  Your criteria only muddied the waters by introducing bias for the types of games that happen to have more of the specific things you chose to measure, out of all the possible choices; and your method also inherently has bias against games that are stronger in qualities that have less association with numbers that can be easily quantified.  (I continue to disagree that a great in-game story doesn't reflect time and effort on the part of the developer, and you have yet to really say anything to back up this claim.)  And ignoring quality carries its own risks, which you acknowledged with the idea of the game that had a million empty square miles of playable area, or a thousand cookie cutter characters that didn't really add to gameplay. 

Spare me your list.  Aside from what I said above, it is heavily disputed; you don't want to continue that debate, which is fine, but you don't get to turn around and act like those numbers are not in dispute.  (Side note:  johnlucas was kind enough to point out the game WarioWare DIY which indisputably fills the content creation/sharing, and you make your own minigames which is analogous to making your own levels.  But we aren't debating that any more )

Back to "what gamers like to play".  There is a very easy way to measure this.  It's not perfect but it should be pretty good, on average, if we take certain things into account.  It's called SALES.  I think that there are plenty of games that fans of the genre who played them would agree are great games which don't have great sales; this can be attributed to the following reasons. 
1—Type.  If the genre or type or style of game is not as popular, even though people who like that type of game like that particular game, there are not as many people who like that type of game in the first place, so less overall people will buy it. 
2—Cost.  People will pay more for a thing they like more; if a thing costs less, more people will buy it even if they like it less.  So cheap games can sell more than more expensive games that are more well-liked. 
3—Knowledge.  If there is poor marketing, not as many people will be aware of the game that they would like, and they will lack the opportunity to buy it. 
4—Availability.  If people don't have the platform, they can't play the game.  This overlaps with cost.  Games on platforms people already own (such as computers) have a lower cost than games that require the purchase of a console.  However, people can spread the cost of the console between all the games on it they want to buy, so they are likely to buy a console that has a lot of games of types they like, especially if the games aren't available on computers. 

If we keep those factors in mind, we should be able to use sales as a good way to judge the collective opinion of all gamers as to how the "quality" of various games, in the eyes of the ENTIRE population, and not just the fans of that type of game.  Therefore it is a more objective measure than if we were to rely on the opinions of people who like game type A telling people who like game type B about how good game A1 is, especially if people are arguing about whether game A1 is better than game B1. 

Going by the sales of games with similar cost that had good marketing, Nintendo games have high quality.  This compares Nintendo games with Sony games and Microsoft games, by an objective measurement.  Nintendo games actually often continue to sell well at full price at times when the Sony/MS games would have long since been given price cuts!  Remember, higher cost means people have to like it more in order to buy it than if it had a lower cost. 

I've contribuited plenty to proving the OP's figures wrong, it doesn't take a million words to type out 82k bud.

As for the rest of what's in the OP (which I don't have to talk about, it's only one part of the thread) I think it's all mumbo jumbo with no meaning and has nothing to do with the here and now and the future. So why bother wasting my time.

What have you added other than your incessant whining?

I have added the catalyst that moved this thread back on topic. I know that is in contrast to what you want to achieve, but so be it. Also, your obsession with 82 000 units sold last week is well documented across the website. It brings nothing to the topic at hand.

Again, if you find the topic to be nothing but mumbo jumbo, then why do you insist on bumping the thread? Are the multitude of diffeernt threads where you point out the weekly Wii U sales not enough to cover your need for pointing it out? I can understand not buying into John Lucas reasoning, I disagree with his conslusions myself. Another thing is to repeat the same useless information over and over and over. Sure, you can talk about whatever you like. I don't report people for any infraction, be it being off topic, flaming, spamming or whatever. I do reserve the right to call people out for useless contributions, not understanding the topic, derailing interesting discussions etc. And that is the right I am exercising in this thread. 

Off topic? Responding to Lucas' own sales predictions are now off topic. Lucas expected this domination thing to start already, why else would he write 12 milion WiiUs sold by the end of the year? Where is the domination? Why is the WiiU going to suddenly become the biggest console this gen and kick Sony and MS out of the market. Sony and MS have sales numbers on their side, 1 million consoles sold in 24 hours for both. What about the WiiU? What does it have? 

I'm really not sure why you keep pressing this idea that the predictions were irrelevant to his arguments.  Again, he got his original notoriety from a prediction, he uses that history as a jumping off point, and he concludes his post with new predictions.  Pretty much all the contents of his original argument lead back to sales numbers. 

Let's look at it in another light.  Say I am a political commentator back in 2004.  I predict that Bush will win the election and it will lead to Republican domination in politics.  I manage to get the first part right, but then 2006 rolls around and Democrats are swept into congress.  Now it is 2012 and I make a big argument about why Romney is going to sweep the election with 80% of the popular vote and it would spell the end of Democrats and Independents.  Then the election rolls around and Romney loses.  Do you think people would be talking about how good my arguments were?  I don't know why you place so much more emphasis on an argument (that has already been discussed over and over these past months) rather than actual results.

What exactly have you brought to the table?  Over the last day you have made a dozen posts in this thread, pretty much all of them whining about other people's posts.  Even when Mummelmann made a huge post of what you wanted, your response was basically you agree and disagree with some things without saying what they were or why you felt that way.  You did manage to complain about him addressing the 12 million prediction though.

I am on topic, just because you don't think I am doesn't mean I'm not. I'm sorry you can't even read the OP all the way to the bottom. and I shall continue to keep it on topic when this weeks numbers are posted.

There are no interesting discussions to be had with Lucas's rambling, you simply don't like the facts and people pointing them out. Touch luck, you're in for a heck of a lot more of it over the next ... forever?

So far the only useless contribuitions are coming from you.

So yeah, I'm calling you out. You're derailing the thread, you're off topic and you're not contributing at all.