By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - UNITY - Nintendo & Wii U Finish The REVOLUTION

Hynad on 16 December 2013
impertinence said:
Mummelmann said:

I'm still here! Already started my rebuttal, gonna take some time to find the actual meat in there that warrants a response amidst all the mindless text.

Here are my initial thoughts;

* Basically all those rhetorical tools I mentioned have been put to use. Some will will be listed below along with other quick observations.

* John Lucas is attempting to box in the argument and force me to argue on his conditions by trying to force the parameters through "banning" certain words and definitions from the debate, elevating himself by stating his superiority without ever presenting why he is actually superior. Textbook so far.

* John Lucas doesn't "believe" in architectural variables, some resulting in varying degrees of ease or difficulty in development.

* He doesn't "believe" in demographics.

* He refuses to take a proper stance on a couple ethics questions and instead dances around the subject and deviates into long-winded philosophy which doesn't pertain to the matter in any meaningful way.

* He links a bunch of unrelated youtube content to undeline opposing arguments to arguments I never made (the commercial bit is the main culprit here).

* Due to my harsh language, I've made him all but come out and expose his Messiah complex, it's actually scary to witness.

* He thinks, apparently in all sincerity, that everyone should have the same taste in gaming as him, including me, a staggering show of incredible elitism.

* Some of his main points are in direct contradiction to another (examples will follow later in a more elaborate post).

* He thinks that the development cost of a game is affected either way by how many copies you print... no comment needed there.

* He basically turns some of my points around, such as the blind leading the blind, effectively stooping to "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactics. Grand.

* He gives me a proper new-age psych evaluation, in which he concludes that I am traumatized and depressed.

* In his fascinating inability to miss nuances of any kind, he doesn't realize that there are always more than two options.

* He's a master at the strawman.

* He takes some of my actual arguments, churns them around a bit and then comes out of a long-ass linguistic tunnel with a conclusion "defeating" an argument I never made, or an unrecognizable version of it at least.

* He claims that he and his disciples are the only ones gifted with the ability to see the industry for what it is, he's basically claiming sole subscription rights to reality.

* He's labelling me as a mere "hater".

* He is directly opposed to variety in software and wants everyone to make Nintendo-like games.

* He's dooming Sony and the Xbox brand throughout but he doesn't seem to know why, he's simply echoing the others saying the same on the boards.

* He has, like I said he would, simply postponed the revolution.

* He backs up his mostly philosophical arguments with obviously made-up and anecdotal "conversion" stories, including ones about himself and even states that I will soon convert.

* He goes on a long rant on why he didn't post here for a few years, constructing a saintly persona from a low-ish background that has defeated the odds all the while deflecting how someone doesn't have any time at all to write a single word on a forum they used to love despite working mostly on the internet. Basically, he's making himself a Nintendo personified, or Jesus if you will.

* He uses the same effects and tools as religious zealots.

* He's dodging the issue of poor current sales and even suggests that the sales aren't poor.

* He believes that Nintendo are the ones who set the standard in the industry, but he also says that everyone else refuses to follow this standard, inevitably making it not a standard by the very definition of the word (this is just one contradiction but among the worst of the bunch).

* A vast amount of the text is subjective philosophy and has no worth in sales discussion.

* Even the points that aren't philosophical of nature are twisted so they become such, leading to extended sections of meaningless monologue discussing nothing on the core matter.

* He still has no explanation for how developers will save money  making games for a HD console (with a similar CPU structure to the 360 and PS3) and seems to believe that lower power consumption in chipsets means that the price of developing textures and other visual bits for them is lower. Yeah.

* He belittles my implication that Nintendo are simply a company that wants to turn a buck by himself insisting that everyone else is evil and don't care about their jobs or their customers.

* He's telling me of all the things I "can't see", much like I said he would.

* He constantly makes references to the past that have no place or relevance to the matter at hand, a simple excuse to go into meandering sections on gaming history and how glorious Nintendo are and always have been.

* He has forgotten that the Gamecube and N64 was pretty much irrelevant and maintains that Nintendo has carried the industry since they started and to this day.

* He purposefully makes his lists of examples long enough for them to digress and reach semi-relevance for comparison, at best.

 

If you take your time and read his post after reading my bits on his rhetoric, you're in for a shock. A lot of you think he's a great debater and has a lot of knowledge. The bits where he actually attempts to venture into the land of cold, hard brass are where he really stumbles, yet he pretends to be well versed on the topics.
The entire post is, as I said, mostly comprised of rhetorical antics and acrobatics, he constructed the sphere like I said and uses all the regular techniques.
I'm gonna make two posts as an answer, one will be wholly dedicated to exposing the transparent techniques John Lucas uses to try to elevate himself while circumventing the actual arguments and the other will be a more direct answer to the post (already started it), the relevant bits anyway, I won't play his game and be forced to deviate into the rhetoric wasteland where he wants the duel to play out.

I realize that the wall of text must look impressive, and it kind of is, some parts are actually pretty good. That's only the surface though, I'll try to expose the entrails so people can see what's what.

John; as fun as it is when people drive all their arguments down "memory lane", you have to realize that there will be a perpetual red light at an intersection somewhere along the line; the point of crossing for "reality check boulevard", it is quite frankly amazing how incredible deluded you are and I have now decided that all this is merely a theatric show to get attention, I refuse to believe that anyone in the world, even on the internet, can be this lost in themselves and have such amazing tunnel vision while thinking they see everything.

I hope there is a better reply in the future, because this is pretty weak coming from you. Unfortunately (or luckily?) these responses are starting to sink under their own weight, and you are right in saying there is a lot of rethorical fluff to get a pretty small set of ideas across. It's not hard to see why it's done. John Lucas has a style of writing that matches his style of predicting: It's grandiose and extravagant. I feel you are getting sidetracked and caught up in the mass of words rather than focus on the issue.

I readily admit, I enjoy John Lucas' style of writing. It is at the very least a great break from the usual drivel you find in these forums. Sometimes a bit long winded, sure, and if I ever hear another word sabout whatever blog he was involved with before it will be too soon, but there's fun to be had in reading his posts. In particular it's fun to follow your clinical analysis vs John Lucas' larger than life presentation. I hope we can get back on that track again soon.

So, I don't particularily care for your attempts to expose the personality of John Lucas. It's irrelevant and most people can see the difference between rethorical fluff and the point being made anyway. You are threading awfully close to falling victim to some of your own critisism by now starting to frame the discussion as one being about John Lucas' personality (disorder) rather than the topic. Also, claiming to correctly be able to predict the style and tools used in his reply isn't really a good path to go down. It is not difficult to predict what will be coming, the style and arguments are consistent, so it's not like it takes some great insight into debates and the minds of others to be able to forsee that. I also feel your reaching too far in trying to show how you have successfully predicted the repsonses and rethorical tools. I think I know what you are trying to achieve by that strategy, but I think it is a weak play.

So, to sum it all up before I go all JL lenghtwise: John Lucas basically repeated what he's been saying again, only with more words than before. The only sort of new aspect was his poisioning the water theory which I find very interesting. The rest is already well established points. So the advice to John Lucas is: Less repetition, less of the personal stories, I had to skip the whole section on poprazza or whatever it was called, and less words when the point has already been made before. The advice to Mummelmann: Less focus on the cult of personality aspect, more focus on the arguments. It takes some ability to cut through wool to find the arguments, but they are there. Your posts are much stronger when you lean on your own thinking about markets and consumers when going off on the cult stuff. The advice to Seece: Let the thread live, no need to lock something because you don't like it or can't understand it. Just stay away if this thread is too much for your sensibilities to bear and let the rest of us have our fun.

Cool story bro.

Anything to contribute about the actual topic? Or is that your thing, you go somewhere with this hollier than thou attitude of yours and give advices you don't even follow (that one about pointing fingers)?



Around the Network
joesampson on 16 December 2013
Mummelmann said:

I'm still here! Already started my rebuttal, gonna take some time to find the actual meat in there that warrants a response amidst all the mindless text....

* He doesn't "believe" in demographics.

* He thinks, apparently in all sincerity, that everyone should have the same taste in gaming as him, including me, a staggering show of incredible elitism.

* He thinks that the development cost of a game is affected either way by how many copies you print... no comment needed there.


...

Boom! Definitely captured most of my initial thoughts on the JL response. The highlighted responses were the biggest points I saw (and funniest for the third one.) I'll provide some feedback to JL based on what I read.

"If Call of Duty games sell more on 360 & PS3, then just lower the amount of copies you make for the other platform." This made me laugh out loud so hard. As if printing copies is the primary expense of producing a game.

"Wii DID start a new era in gaming. Wii DID cause a full-turn revolution. Alongside the DS.
This cannot be denied as we see the adventures of Microsoft's Kinect, Sony's PlayStation Move, & Apple's & later Google's emergence in the gaming realm through the smartphones & tablets."

Really? Where are all the new motion controlled games? The big sellers? Yes PS4 and X1 support their motion systems but its very clear neither is focusing on them for games and clearly nintendo pretty much isnt as well. Motion games will have their occasional place but the Wii was no revolution. As I see it the Wii's motion control revolution turned out to be a fad.

"Horsepower is an excuse because that has never gotten in the way of a developer before.
It didn't get in the way of the Sega Genesis. It didn't get in the way of the Sony PlayStation 2."

Absurd. First of all, the difference in power between the two examples you mentioned and their competitors was nowhere near as large as the difference between the Wii and its competitors.

Second, sure some games might be possible to downport but not all games. How can you not realize this? Horsepower is most certainly a valid excuse for refusing to downport a game. You can only gimp a piece of software so much before it becomes a technical mess or compromises the designers original vision.

Third, porting is not always about the nominal profit a company might make but the ROI. Could Rockstar port GTA V to the Wii U? Sure. But if it costs them $1 million and developer resources that could otherwise start working on GTA VI that will make a much larger ROI, then its a bad idea to port.

"There's a reason why I call the 3rd Party "The Kids". I should call them "The Brats".

God these analogies are so bad. Related to the last point, THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY CONSPIRACY! If Nintendo has a bad relationship with some third parties that's one thing, but regardless companies don't make decisions based on grudges and childlike behaviors you are describing. ROI. They are focused on ROI. Third parties know that the majority of their customers are on PS, XBOX, and PC. That's where they are going to prioritize their investments. Some publishers may test the water with Nintendo, e.g. Ubisoft, but if the ROI doesn't meet their expectations they will refocus on their more profitable platforms.

"They make games for EVERYONE. Not "Casuals" Not "Hardcores". EVERYONE. From 5 to 95."

JL, your argument against the labeling of casuals and hardcores is completely wrong. While those terms may not be great terms there is not one single gamer as you like to say. There are different demographics, markets, and market segments that all have completely different interests, habits, and preferences. To say that people who only play wii sports and wii fit are the same as gamers who play bioshock, last of us, etc is insane. In fact among the "hardcore" demographic there are hundreds of other segments. There is not one type of gamer as you say.

That brings me to my next point. JL, you're living in a bubble. I don't know if your game collection profile is complete but based on what I see you havent played a single non-nintendo game in your life. Sure, if you look at mine you won't find any nintendo games because I havent owned a nintendo console since the NES and GB and havent really played a nintendo game in full since Goldeneye, however, I am not oblivious to the appeal and success of Nintendo. I understand that there are millions of gamers elsewhere who love nintendo games. I am not oblivious that nintendo makes good games even if they aren't my cup of tea. But based on your comments you appear to be oblivious that other developers make games that millions of people love just as much as you love nintendo. There are plenty of developers (Rockstar, Bungie, Remedy, Bethesda, Naughty Dog etc.) who make fantastic, incredible games that are nothing like NIntendo. Again, do you not realize that you are only one of many gaming demographics. Can you not comprehend that there are people out there who like things you don't like, that don't like things you do like? This is why there is no Unity! There will be no everyone's console. PC gamers will never trade their high end machines, mods, keyboards, and mice to exclusively game on Nintendo. PS and XBOX gamers will continue to buy those consoles for their Uncharteds, Halos, Gears, and Gran Turismos in addition to the incredible third party games.

"Jacking up console prices to $400, $500, $600. Making you pay an extra bill for online play when it used to be free.
Trying to restrict the purchase of used games. Trying to restrict the ability to share games.
Disabling the ability for console to work offline. Microtransactions ruining the gaming experience.
Commercials inside games. Advertisements on home screen of console. The abandonment of local multiplayer.
Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience.
Building & releasing fragile shoddy consoles that overheat & chew up your game discs."

Please. Let's look at Nintendo. Here is a $250 console, now please buy several wiimotes, nunchucks(not included with wiimote), plastic racing wheels, balance boards, pro controllers, oh and lets not forget hard drives because we refuse to include reasonable storage in either wii or wii u. Lets censor everything you do on our console and delete communication apps. I could go on but the point is no one is innocent here. I certainly don't like the moves microsoft attempted or now having to pay online for PS plus however, im am no longer upset given the value I get now. Two free games each month and dedicated servers with xbox gold, literally hundreds of games yearly with PS plus. And achivements? Really JL, you're going to complain about achivements? Again, I revert to my previous point, if you don't like it, it doesnt mean other people don't as well. To some people, what Microsoft and Sony is doing is not damaging the industry. Too bad if you don't like it.

This was not in your response to Mummel but you and others have said something similar multiple times before and its so ridiculous I have to address it. "The weakest console always win each generation." So many things wrong with this statement.

First, its not even fully correct. At the very least SNES was more powerful than the Genesis.
Second, a sample size of 7 generations is not sufficient to determine any meaningful significance to such a trend.
Third and most importantly, correlation does not imply causation. You should know this JL. You could at least try to make an argument about how the weakest console is usually cheaper or debuts earlier and that is what contributes to it's dominance but even then I could come back and dismiss it by introducing a multiple of other factors.

Lastly a comment about the PS4/X1 launches and why your Unity revolution is in more unlikely than you can tell by just weak hardware sales alone.

Nintendo has two major interralted issues right now with the Wii U and its competitors launches. First, Nintendo has very little third party support and it very likely may get worse. This has been discussed ad nauseum but ill quickly restate. First off, while the Wii U is certainly not as relatively underpowered as the Wii U its certainly the weakest of the three consoles and obviously much weaker than most PCs. Second, the Wii U is now the odd man out in terms of architecure. It will never make sense to lead with a Wii U when the three other platforms have similar architectures. Worst off, the weaker power and different architecture may discourage developers from even experimenting with a Wii U port.

Second, the Wii U is at a disadvantage because of a lack of a network effect. Nintendo's critical error last generation to limit their focus on online gaming will haunt them this generation and possibly further into the future. Like any social network, Sony and Microsoft have built a pretty powerful network effect of gamers on their consoles. Gamers on both consoles and PCs all have their own friends list, achievements, gamer history, and digital content accounts. Nintendo will struggle mightly to get any of these gamers to switch. While the start of a new generation is certainly the easiest time to switch since multiplayer gaming doesn't span console generations, the aforementioned factors in addition to brand loyalty will make it almost impossibly difficult to convince these multiplayer gamers to switch to the Wii U. This is why Nintendo has openly stated that they will allow cross platform multiplayer gaming. Because they have everything to gain from this and nothing to lose; hence why Sony and Microsoft will disallow it. This is further exacerbated by the third party issues mentioned above. The Wii U is outright missing the sports sim genre. No Fifa 14, Madden 14, NHL 14, NBA 2K14, and of course no MLB the Show 14. Across other games and genres they're missing NFS Rivals, racing sims, Battlefield, Destiny, The Crew, The division, and many more. How does this related to the network effect? These are all online games that thrive on the online communites built around them. Even the Wii U's only major multiplayer game, (COD Ghosts) sold peanuts compared to the X1 and PS4 versions. According to this site both the PS4 and X1 versions have sold over 1 mil while the Wii U hasn't even broken 100k. The Wii U is already behind in its network effect for these games despite the one year head start. How long till the only real 3P supporters of the Wii U(Ubisoft and WB) break support as well?

In conclusion, I'm not dooming Nintendo here even if I sound harsh. I still believe Nintendo may be able to shift around 40 million units and sell plenty of Nintendo software to keep them profitable, but there will be no unity, no revolution, no domination. Sony and Microsoft will hold their own as they have the past two generations while Nintendo will excel at making Nintendo games for Nintendo fans. Why not just sit back and enjoy those games instead of wishing and hoping that everyone comes to sit at your nintendo table.



Hynad on 16 December 2013

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing a video game. -__-



Dv8thwonder on 17 December 2013
Hynad said:

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing

I don't know how you can compare something that obviously does nothing for videogames other than obsessing over an unimportant number to something that actually is needed to unlock content in a game. Achievements are the embodiement of superficiality. The stars are a necessity and the stamps while trivial to some actually have a purpose that encourages communication within the games own community. All you can do with an achievement/trophy is brag that you have it and then what? That sounds like a pretty empty and shallow experience to me. And if that is not enough to convince or sway you opinion, there's always Nintendo Club points which pre-date achievements and trophies and actually reward the player in real life.



Things that need to die in 2016: Defeatist attitudes of Nintendo fans

Seece on 17 December 2013
Dv8thwonder said:
Hynad said:

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing

I don't know how you can compare something that obviously does nothing for videogames other than obsessing over an unimportant number to something that actually is needed to unlock content in a game. Achievements are the embodiement of superficiality. The stars are a necessity and the stamps while trivial to some actually have a purpose that encourages communication within the games own community. All you can do with an achievement/trophy is brag that you have it and then what? That sounds like a pretty empty and shallow experience to me. And if that is not enough to convince or sway you opinion, there's always Nintendo Club points which pre-date achievements and trophies and actually reward the player in real life.

Trueachievements and Truetrophies say hi, they have created communities based on Achievements and Trophies any in game collectables Nintendo could only dream of achieveing. You can tell you don't know anything about PS360. Most achievements are story based or multiplayer, you pick them up naturally. Others, say for instance off the top of my head, collect all the orbs in Prince of Persia, encourage you to go do that. There is no purpose in game to do that, it's just a collectable Ubisoft put in for the fun of it. If there wasn't an achievement attached to it, I wouldn't have bothered doing it. Which means I wouldn't have got as much play time out of it and explored the world as much as I did. And yes I enjoyed that. And yes I like achievements.

Achievements and Trophies are entirely optional, and they encourage you to play more and get more out of your games.



 

Around the Network
joesampson on 17 December 2013
Seece said:
Dv8thwonder said:
Hynad said:

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing

I don't know how you can compare something that obviously does nothing for videogames other than obsessing over an unimportant number to something that actually is needed to unlock content in a game. Achievements are the embodiement of superficiality. The stars are a necessity and the stamps while trivial to some actually have a purpose that encourages communication within the games own community. All you can do with an achievement/trophy is brag that you have it and then what? That sounds like a pretty empty and shallow experience to me. And if that is not enough to convince or sway you opinion, there's always Nintendo Club points which pre-date achievements and trophies and actually reward the player in real life.

Trueachievements and Truetrophies say hi, they have created communities based on Achievements and Trophies any in game collectables Nintendo could only dream of achieveing. You can tell you don't know anything about PS360. Most achievements are story based or multiplayer, you pick them up naturally. Others, say for instance off the top of my head, collect all the orbs in Prince of Persia, encourage you to go do that. There is no purpose in game to do that, it's just a collectable Ubisoft put in for the fun of it. If there wasn't an achievement attached to it, I wouldn't have bothered doing it. Which means I wouldn't have got as much play time out of it and explored the world as much as I did. And yes I enjoyed that. And yes I like achievements.

Achievements and Trophies are entirely optional, and they encourage you to play more and get more out of your games.

Yup this. In GTA IV there was an acheivement if you managed to fly a helicopter under each bridge in the city. Again a fun little mini-game that I otherwise wouldnt have thought to do if I didn't know it was an achievement.



Seece on 17 December 2013
joesampson said:
Seece said:
Dv8thwonder said:
Hynad said:

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing

I don't know how you can compare something that obviously does nothing for videogames other than obsessing over an unimportant number to something that actually is needed to unlock content in a game. Achievements are the embodiement of superficiality. The stars are a necessity and the stamps while trivial to some actually have a purpose that encourages communication within the games own community. All you can do with an achievement/trophy is brag that you have it and then what? That sounds like a pretty empty and shallow experience to me. And if that is not enough to convince or sway you opinion, there's always Nintendo Club points which pre-date achievements and trophies and actually reward the player in real life.

Trueachievements and Truetrophies say hi, they have created communities based on Achievements and Trophies any in game collectables Nintendo could only dream of achieveing. You can tell you don't know anything about PS360. Most achievements are story based or multiplayer, you pick them up naturally. Others, say for instance off the top of my head, collect all the orbs in Prince of Persia, encourage you to go do that. There is no purpose in game to do that, it's just a collectable Ubisoft put in for the fun of it. If there wasn't an achievement attached to it, I wouldn't have bothered doing it. Which means I wouldn't have got as much play time out of it and explored the world as much as I did. And yes I enjoyed that. And yes I like achievements.

Achievements and Trophies are entirely optional, and they encourage you to play more and get more out of your games.

Yup this. In GTA IV there was an acheivement if you managed to fly a helicopter under each bridge in the city. Again a fun little mini-game that I otherwise wouldnt have thought to do if I didn't know it was an achievement.

Haha yup, GTA is amazing for achievements. What about Limbo? Complete the game dying 5 or less times. Awesome.



 

Fusioncode on 17 December 2013
Dv8thwonder said:

It took me 5 hours to read this in between Kill la Kill episodes (great show by the way. GO WATCH THAT SHIT!). John explaining himself to Mummelman of all people was not necessary. I would rather John had brought up the 3rd party obsession with Nintendo going mobile or how Sony and Microsoft are fucked if they're hacked.https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/hackers-like-playstation-4-and-xbox-one-too-121613.html#social-link Or what company has a background in pop music and the movie industry? And treats the videogame business in the same fashion.http://t.co/WJ3n2KllGx http://t.co/lrkl0bOART This is what happens when someone without any gamecraft designs a game. Very formulaic like most pop music and today's Hollywood blockbuster action films. Sony has a habit of doing this. e.g Final Fantasy:Spirits Within; White House Down, After Earth.

Oooh another awkward attempt to discredit Sony's game design. This time by pointing out their movie business! Of couse SCE has NOTHING to do with the film studio but I'll play along. It's funny how you only mentioned their mediocre films, let's take a look at some of their better ones shall we? Skyfall, Zero Dark Thirty, American Hustle, Spider-Man 1 and 2, Captain Phillips, Zombieland, The Social Network, Men in Black, The Adventures of Tintin, Hellboy, Django Unchained etc. 

Also that hacking garbage was proved to be fake. Please do a little more reasearch next time you post. 

Off topic but I actually like Final Fantasy: Spirits WIthin. It wasn't mindblowing but it was a fun animated film. Not sure why so many people despised it. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Hynad on 17 December 2013
Dv8thwonder said:
Hynad said:

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing

I don't know how you can compare something that obviously does nothing for videogames other than obsessing over an unimportant number to something that actually is needed to unlock content in a game. Achievements are the embodiement of superficiality. The stars are a necessity and the stamps while trivial to some actually have a purpose that encourages communication within the games own community. All you can do with an achievement/trophy is brag that you have it and then what? That sounds like a pretty empty and shallow experience to me. And if that is not enough to convince or sway you opinion, there's always Nintendo Club points which pre-date achievements and trophies and actually reward the player in real life.


But... There is absolutely no purpose in getting every stars in a Mario game. You don't need them to unlock the final levels and finish the game. You can get them or not. But getting them all can be challenging and fun. And it adds a bit more play time to the games. That's no different from Trophies and Achievements.

As for the stamps... They don't serve much purpose at all other than to unlock World Crown. They're mostly gimmicks and nothing more. Sure, the drawings are nice. But there's hardly any communication involved with them. And before you ask me, yes, I do have a Wii U and enjoy the console quite a bit, I've got Super Mario 3D World with 380 stars and 81 stamps (still have to complete every level with every characters other than Mario). So yeah, I kinda know what's going on with those stamps on Miiverse. ¬_¬



Dv8thwonder on 17 December 2013
Seece said:
joesampson said:
Seece said:
Dv8thwonder said:
Hynad said:

"Focus on superficial Achievements over the natural discovery within the gaming experience."

What's the difference between achievements/Trophies compared to any other collectathon you see in most other games? Take Nintendo's Mario games... What's the point of having so many stamps and stars to collect if they don't serve much purpose in the end? You don't need every stars to unlock the last levels. And when you do collect them all, there's no reward awaiting you, no new ending, nothing. What purpose do they serve other than for bragging rights, really?


That's the same with Achievements and Trophies. They're just like most other collectathons. They're there to spice things up a little, and give some fun goals to reach. For personal enjoyment and nothing more. Saying that one is shallow and superficial and the other isn't is quite laughable. At the end of the day, you're still playing

I don't know how you can compare something that obviously does nothing for videogames other than obsessing over an unimportant number to something that actually is needed to unlock content in a game. Achievements are the embodiement of superficiality. The stars are a necessity and the stamps while trivial to some actually have a purpose that encourages communication within the games own community. All you can do with an achievement/trophy is brag that you have it and then what? That sounds like a pretty empty and shallow experience to me. And if that is not enough to convince or sway you opinion, there's always Nintendo Club points which pre-date achievements and trophies and actually reward the player in real life.

Trueachievements and Truetrophies say hi, they have created communities based on Achievements and Trophies any in game collectables Nintendo could only dream of achieveing. You can tell you don't know anything about PS360. Most achievements are story based or multiplayer, you pick them up naturally. Others, say for instance off the top of my head, collect all the orbs in Prince of Persia, encourage you to go do that. There is no purpose in game to do that, it's just a collectable Ubisoft put in for the fun of it. If there wasn't an achievement attached to it, I wouldn't have bothered doing it. Which means I wouldn't have got as much play time out of it and explored the world as much as I did. And yes I enjoyed that. And yes I like achievements.

Achievements and Trophies are entirely optional, and they encourage you to play more and get more out of your games.






@Seece I'm looking at my 360 game collection (bet you didn't know I had one) and although I have unlocked achievements in many of my games, never had I thought that were integral to the experience or were they worth the price of admission. In my opinion they often ruin those experiences. They also remove all mystery of a videogame and boil the experience down to a list of repetitive chores. Not very fun for me but you keep on being told what to do and enjoy it and I will do what I damn well please. And these communities you speak of? Are they available through the actual console itself because I'm looking and for some reason I can't find them..:) XBL: Sweetearth / As in I smokes it or at least I used to /smh

 



Things that need to die in 2016: Defeatist attitudes of Nintendo fans