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

Forums - Nintendo - Why Mario Kart 8 didn't save the WiiU

Tagged games:

impertinence on 19 June 2014
DevilRising said:
Max King of the Wild said:
And just to ice the cake... Dictionary.com

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty

I think employment qualifies as self interest and personal profit.

Reggie = shill

Yes, and by that definition, so is every public head/face of every company on the face of the Earth. That doesn't, however, mean that Reggie can't, as part of his job, be trying to sell you something, but also genuinely like/care about the products he's selling you at the same time. That is not unheard of in the business world, not by a longshot, and just because Reggie is, as you claim, a "shill", because he wants you to buy the product that he represents, doesn't imply that he automatically also doesn't actually like video games. By all indications, he does, and even though he's absolutely a corporate PR man, you can still tell/see on his face that he gets genuinely excited/enthusistic when talking about some of these games.

So what was your point again, exactly? Merely curious.

Stop this nonsense. A shill has a very precises meaning, and taking single definitions out of context to try to obfuscate the meaning is fruitless, so is engaging in this dilution of the definition. There are two essential properties of a shill:

1. They endorse or promote a product, concept, idea, person or whatever

2. They try to lend credibility to their pitch by pretending to be unaffiliated or connected to what they are promoting. 

Obviously, point 2 here is where things fall apart. Reggie is a well known employee of Nintendo, it is virtually impossible for him to act as a shill in any videogame related capacity. 

The technique to water down the definition of the word and then applying it to something might look convincing if you take it at face value, but if you examine the King of the Wild's position of this, shill is a word that no longer has a meaning. To make the argument valid point 2 above has to be completely removed from the definition of the word which renders it useless. Under that definition anyone who ever recommends a place to eat to their friend is a shill, anyone who creates a commercial for a product is a shill, anyone who supports a political idea is a shill, I could go on.. 



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 19 June 2014

Stop this nonsense. A shill has a very precises meaning, and taking single definitions out of context to try to obfuscate the meaning is fruitless, so is engaging in this dilution of the definition. There are two essential properties of a shill:

1. They endorse or promote a product, concept, idea, person or whatever

2. They try to lend credibility to their pitch by pretending to be unaffiliated or connected to what they are promoting. 

Obviously, point 2 here is where things fall apart. Reggie is a well known employee of Nintendo, it is virtually impossible for him to act as a shill in any videogame related capacity. 

The technique to water down the definition of the word and then applying it to something might look convincing if you take it at face value, but if you examine the King of the Wild's position of this, shill is a word that no longer has a meaning. To make the argument valid point 2 above has to be completely removed from the definition of the word which renders it useless. Under that definition anyone who ever recommends a place to eat to their friend is a shill, anyone who creates a commercial for a product is a shill, anyone who supports a political idea is a shill, I could go on.. 


Let consult a dictionary on your second condition.... Nope not there. Point one however...  Yup that's explicitly stated there... Hmm curious 

 

Best you can do at this point after three definitions haven't supported your claim is say something like, "a shill is generally reserved to describe someone who tries to act unaffiliated with the product they are promoting " because yes, obviously, those fulfill the definition of a shill... But so does Reggie. 



Seece on 19 June 2014
OfficerRaichu15 said:
Seece said:
think-man said:
Mk8 was never going to save the WiiU. A single game can't "save" a system. It can give it a bump in sales but that's about it.

Not strictly true, Pokemon saved Gameboy? But that was a new franchise which because a phenomenon. MK8 is a sequel, people know what they're getting. So you're right.


you forgot halo that helped sell the xbox 

It was there from the start, so not sure you could say it saved it. Sure as hell hoped, but not the same situation as Pokemon and Gameboy, and some game possibly coming to save WiiU.



 

OfficerRaichu15 on 19 June 2014
Seece said:
OfficerRaichu15 said:
Seece said:
think-man said:
Mk8 was never going to save the WiiU. A single game can't "save" a system. It can give it a bump in sales but that's about it.

Not strictly true, Pokemon saved Gameboy? But that was a new franchise which because a phenomenon. MK8 is a sequel, people know what they're getting. So you're right.


you forgot halo that helped sell the xbox 

It was there from the start, so not sure you could say it saved it. Sure as hell hoped, but not the same situation as Pokemon and Gameboy, and some game possibly coming to save WiiU.

ok then ill say halo 2 helped it sell then



Bets:

(Won)Bet with TechoHobbit: He(Techno) says 10 million by January 1,2014 I say 9 million by then. Winner gets 2 weeks of sig control.

(Lost)Bet with kinisking: I say Ps4 will win April NPD while he says Xbox One will win it; winner gets 1 week of avatar control.

Raichu's First Series:

First RPG?

First Fighter?

First Racer?

First Shooter?

First MMO?

First Horror?

Official Ni No Kuni Fanboy:

Familiars Captured:37

Game Beaten: 2 times almost

Times I got teary during some scenes: 3

Michael-5 on 19 June 2014
DélioPT said:
If it`s selling well, why should they not order more? It`s really strange, if you ask me.

If only I could "like" comments +1



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
DerNebel on 19 June 2014
padib said:
DerNebel said:
padib said:

No, the games that made the PS2 great might still be on PS3/4 but they are not selling anything like they were before Sly R&C and Co.

Those are not the games that made the PS2 big.

Let's look at the numbers instead of posting our opinions:

Pos Game Platform Year Genre Publisher North America Europe Japan Rest of World Global
1 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas PS2 2004 Action Take-Two Interactive 9.43 0.40 0.41 10.57 20.81
2 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City PS2 2002 Action Take-Two Interactive 8.41 5.49 0.47 1.78 16.15
3 Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec PS2 2001 Racing Sony Computer Entertainment 6.85 5.09 1.87 1.16 14.98
4 Grand Theft Auto III PS2 2001 Action Take-Two Interactive 6.99 4.51 0.30 1.30 13.10
5 Gran Turismo 4 PS2 2004 Racing Sony Computer Entertainment 3.01 0.01 1.10 7.53 11.66
6 Final Fantasy X PS2 2001 Role-Playing Sony Computer Entertainment 2.91 2.07 2.73 0.33 8.05
7 Need for Speed Underground PS2 2003 Racing Electronic Arts 3.27 2.83 0.08 1.02 7.20
8 Need for Speed Underground 2 PS2 2004 Racing Electronic Arts 2.71 3.02 0.08 1.09 6.90
9 Medal of Honor: Frontline PS2 2002 Shooter Electronic Arts 2.93 2.75 0.17 0.99 6.83
10 Kingdom Hearts PS2 2002 Role-Playing Sony Computer Entertainment 3.64 1.20 1.49 0.07 6.40
11 Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty PS2 2001 Action Konami Digital Entertainment 2.45 2.01 0.87 0.72 6.05
12 Final Fantasy XII PS2 2006 Role-Playing Square Enix 1.88 0.00 2.33 1.74 5.95
13 Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex PS2 2001 Platform Universal Interactive 2.07 2.29 0.24 0.82 5.42
14 Final Fantasy X-2 PS2 2003 Role-Playing Electronic Arts 1.92 1.08 2.11 0.17 5.29
15 Madden NFL 2004 PS2 N/A Sports Electronic Arts 4.26 0.26 0.01 0.71 5.23
16 Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King PS2 2004 Role-Playing Square Enix 0.65 0.75 3.61 0.20 5.21
17 Medal of Honor: Rising Sun PS2 2003 Shooter Electronic Arts 1.98 2.23 0.13 0.80 5.13
18 Guitar Hero II PS2 2006 Misc RedOctane 3.81 0.63 0.00 0.68 5.12
19 Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock PS2 2007 Misc Activision 3.49 0.01 0.01 1.48 4.98
20 Madden NFL 06 PS2 2005 Sports Electronic Arts 3.98 0.26 0.01 0.66 4.91
21 The Simpsons: Hit & Run PS2 2003 Racing Vivendi Games 1.73 2.19 0.00 0.79 4.70
22 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers PS2 2002 Action Electronic Arts 1.94 1.95 0.08 0.70 4.67
23 Madden NFL 2005 PS2 2004 Sports Electronic Arts 4.18 0.26 0.01 0.08 4.53
24 Madden NFL 07 PS2 2006 Sports Electronic Arts 3.63 0.24 0.01 0.61 4.49
25 Spider-Man: The Movie PS2 2002 Action Activision 2.71 1.51 0.03 0.23 4.48

Sure, I cede that GTA was an explosive series on the PS2. However, it's 1 franchise. All the others are

Gran Turismo -> A driving simulator (non-violent)
FFX -> a JRPG
Need for Speed -> A driving arcade (non-violent)
Medal of honor -> 1 point for you
Kingdom Hearts -> A disney JRPG
Metal Gear -> Not desired for its violence but its depth (half point for you)
FF
Crash
Madden
Dragon Quest
Guitar Hero
Simpsons
Spider Man

Lots of JRPG, Music, Arcade and Family games.

You ready for the PS3 list? LOL

When did I ever say anything about violence? The point is that the games from back then still exist if there is still an audience for them and those that don't have an audience anymore disappeared and got replaced by others. Gta, GT, FF, MGS and more than likely KH are still huge or at least very big and others like Cod, AC or Fifa came and/or got huge in the last years. Both Sony and MS will achieve variety on their systems and will have more then enough different games to cater to the majority of the gaming community.

If there is one of the big 3 that is driven in a corner regarding their audience then it's Nintendo, cause their audience consists of one group right now: the Nintendo fans.



impertinence on 19 June 2014
Max King of the Wild said:

Stop this nonsense. A shill has a very precises meaning, and taking single definitions out of context to try to obfuscate the meaning is fruitless, so is engaging in this dilution of the definition. There are two essential properties of a shill:

1. They endorse or promote a product, concept, idea, person or whatever

2. They try to lend credibility to their pitch by pretending to be unaffiliated or connected to what they are promoting. 

Obviously, point 2 here is where things fall apart. Reggie is a well known employee of Nintendo, it is virtually impossible for him to act as a shill in any videogame related capacity. 

The technique to water down the definition of the word and then applying it to something might look convincing if you take it at face value, but if you examine the King of the Wild's position of this, shill is a word that no longer has a meaning. To make the argument valid point 2 above has to be completely removed from the definition of the word which renders it useless. Under that definition anyone who ever recommends a place to eat to their friend is a shill, anyone who creates a commercial for a product is a shill, anyone who supports a political idea is a shill, I could go on.. 


Let consult a dictionary on your second condition.... Nope not there. Point one however...  Yup that's explicitly stated there... Hmm curious 

Max King of the Wild said:
By the way, here's Oxfords definition

A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.

Should we bring up Reggie's statements comparing Nintendo, Ms and Sony systems acting impartial? I assume we can agree he has an interest in the system. 

Like it or not Reggie = shill

----
You already provided the definition yourself. Or were you just lying? Anyway, feel free to go the rest of your life pretending that anyone who speaks favorably about anything is a shill. You've already provided several definitions yourself that clearly imply that you are using the word wrong. But, you are either incapable of admitting being wrong, or don't have the faculties to understand these definitions so you keep clinging on to an incorrect position.
I have some experience with the internet and intractibility, so while I could probably easily provide 20 different and independent sources for the correct understanding of what a shill is, I know you will come back with the same retort you've already tried once before in this thread:
lol, source, x, y, z vs Mariam Webster [sic]. Then revert back to your misunderstanding of the definition.
It's a fruitless endevour on my part, so I won't chase deeper down this rabbithole. So, feel free to come back with whatever that helps you perseve face, but I suggest that at one point today you do a mental experiment: Without having to acknowledge it here infront of your peers, assume in your private mind that you could have been using the word incorrectly. With that asumption in mind, go forth on the internet and use it's vast resources trying to find information that supports the idea that a shill is someone who tries to hide their affilication with what they are promoting. 
If you are capable of doing that exersize I guarantee that you will come away with a different opinion on wheter Reggie is a shill or not. If you would rather not do this excersize, let me strongly suggest that you don't use the word 'shill' in conversation to your boss or other people you need to maintain a good relationship with. 


SjOne on 19 June 2014

I call Wii U saved if it can surpass N64 sales let alone GameCube



Max King of the Wild on 19 June 2014
impertinence said:
Max King of the Wild said:

Stop this nonsense. A shill has a very precises meaning, and taking single definitions out of context to try to obfuscate the meaning is fruitless, so is engaging in this dilution of the definition. There are two essential properties of a shill:

1. They endorse or promote a product, concept, idea, person or whatever

2. They try to lend credibility to their pitch by pretending to be unaffiliated or connected to what they are promoting. 

Obviously, point 2 here is where things fall apart. Reggie is a well known employee of Nintendo, it is virtually impossible for him to act as a shill in any videogame related capacity. 

The technique to water down the definition of the word and then applying it to something might look convincing if you take it at face value, but if you examine the King of the Wild's position of this, shill is a word that no longer has a meaning. To make the argument valid point 2 above has to be completely removed from the definition of the word which renders it useless. Under that definition anyone who ever recommends a place to eat to their friend is a shill, anyone who creates a commercial for a product is a shill, anyone who supports a political idea is a shill, I could go on.. 


Let consult a dictionary on your second condition.... Nope not there. Point one however...  Yup that's explicitly stated there... Hmm curious 

Max King of the Wild said:
By the way, here's Oxfords definition

A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.

Should we bring up Reggie's statements comparing Nintendo, Ms and Sony systems acting impartial? I assume we can agree he has an interest in the system. 

Like it or not Reggie = shill

----
You already provided the definition yourself. Or were you just lying? Anyway, feel free to go the rest of your life pretending that anyone who speaks favorably about anything is a shill. You've already provided several definitions yourself that clearly imply that you are using the word wrong. But, you are either incapable of admitting being wrong, or don't have the faculties to understand these definitions so you keep clinging on to an incorrect position.
I have some experience with the internet and intractibility, so while I could probably easily provide 20 different and independent sources for the correct understanding of what a shill is, I know you will come back with the same retort you've already tried once before in this thread:
lol, source, x, y, z vs Mariam Webster [sic]. Then revert back to your misunderstanding of the definition.
It's a fruitless endevour on my part, so I won't chase deeper down this rabbithole. So, feel free to come back with whatever that helps you perseve face, but I suggest that at one point today you do a mental experiment: Without having to acknowledge it here infront of your peers, assume in your private mind that you could have been using the word incorrectly. With that asumption in mind, go forth on the internet and use it's vast resources trying to find information that supports the idea that a shill is someone who tries to hide their affilication with what they are promoting. 
If you are capable of doing that exersize I guarantee that you will come away with a different opinion on wheter Reggie is a shill or not. If you would rather not do this excersize, let me strongly suggest that you don't use the word 'shill' in conversation to your boss or other people you need to maintain a good relationship with. 


All I'm getting from you is a whole lot of nothing. Are you trying to claim paid employee can't act impartial and the only way to achieve it is to be completely removed from whatever the situation is? If so, you are wrong again. Also, your comprehensive skills are showing. I never stated everyone who talks favorably about something is a shill. Nice try 



naruball on 19 June 2014
OfficerRaichu15 said:
Ucell said:

In that case Sony, MS or any other third-party developer can also make games to appeal to a younger audience. Still doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't make much of a difference. NIntendo can shine in a broader market, but that isn't happening anytime soon.

ill add a question to this

Why do we need violence in video games?

Why is it appealing? 


What kind of question is that? Why do we need RPG's. Why do we need colourful games? Why do we need racing games? Why do we need sport games?

Same answer: because there's an audience for that. People watch action movies with violence all the time. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for the second question? Yes, it is to some people. Just the way you, perhaps, like plumbers who eat mushrooms and get bigger, people like shooting things and killing monsters. Just not cute monsters. Nothing wrong with either group.