who should buy capcom?

think-man

Currently Offline

72,974

14106 posts since 08/02/10

Recent Badges:

Freezing Logged in on Christmas day.
2 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 2 years.
Talk of the Town 1,000 wall posts made on gamrConnect.
Watch Your Back! Received 10,000 profile views.
Right Tool for the Right Tool Score a total of 25 games in your collection.
God Of VGC 10,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.

Currently Playing:

Horizon: Zero Dawn (PS4)
Barbie Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue (PS2)
Barbie: Jet, Set & Style! (DS)
Barbie: Magic Genie Adventure (GB)

think-man on 21 June 2014

RubberWhistleHistle said:

think-man said:

Doesn't matter, there are over 20 publishers with higher metacritic averages than Nintendo. For every good game Ninty makes they make a crap one that brings down their average. Look at publishers like Valve and Blizzard they make near perfect games every time.

Nintendo Average 76

Valve Average 85

Blizzard Average 89

So as you can see Nintendo are far from the best you were claiming them to be.

Valve makes like one game a year, maybe two if we are lucky. Blizzard only made one game. So those can't really be compared to nintendos legacy of, i don't know, hundreds of games they have made/published.

Nintendo makes the highest rated and best games, and I'm afraid that is just the reality we all have to live in.

Doesn't matter, Valve only makes the very best games making them superior to Nintendo It doesn't matter if you release one game a year or 100 at the end of the day Valves quality is of a higher standard than Nintendo. I'm afraid that is just the reality we all have to live in.

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3

Conina

Currently Online

40,968

8678 posts since 21/12/12

Recent Badges:

The High Flyer Earned 40 badges.
Genocide 5,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
Back of the Net Score a total of 100 games in your collection.
Everything's Falling Into Place Add a total of 100 games to your collection.
Man or Robot? Managed to avoid being banned for 10 years.
So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.

Conina on 21 June 2014

Arkhandar said:

Conina said:

RubberWhistleHistle said:

Teeqoz said:

What? Just, how can you say those two things in the same sentence?

its not a matter of being biased, i just want what is best for gamers and the gaming industry as a whole.

So it's the best for gamers and the whole game industry when all games in the next 5 years are limited to 1 GB available RAM?

So it's the best for gamers and two fourths of the games industry when most games in the next 5 years are limited to 5 GB available RAM?

What a bad analogy! I'm not the one who wants a software monopoly for 1 manufacturer... and just the one least interested in pushing the envelope of technological progression.

I would be happy if some ambitious projects would also take good use of 10 GB or 20 GB RAM in a high end PC. But at the moment consoles with 5 GB free RAM are affordable for most gamers, so developers should feel free to use that resources if it enables their vision and/or if they think that it enhances the quality of their games .

Arkhandar

Currently Offline

194

108 posts since 08/01/14

Recent Badges:

4 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 4 years.
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.
Site Veteran Has been a VGChartz member for over 5 years.
2 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 2 years.
7 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 7 years.
6 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 6 years.

Arkhandar on 22 June 2014

Conina said:

Arkhandar said:

So it's the best for gamers and two fourths of the games industry when most games in the next 5 years are limited to 5 GB available RAM?

What a bad analogy! I'm not the one who wants a software monopoly for 1 manufacturer... and just the one least interested in pushing the envelope of technological progression.

I would be happy if some ambitious projects would also take good use of 10 GB or 20 GB RAM in a high end PC. But at the moment consoles with 5 GB free RAM are affordable for most gamers, so developers should feel free to use that resources if it enables their vision and/or if they think that it enhances the quality of their games .

Me neither. A monopoly would be terrible for the industry and gamers.

There are basicaly two different development philosophies in place here. One supports the most recent technology available in hte name of progression, while the other follow a lateral thinking with withered technolgy to reach a larger audience. There is no right or worng pgilosophy here, they're just different and dependent in one another. If Sony and MS didn't use more updated tech we would have withered technology forever. If Nintendo didn't use withered technology, nothing would Sony and MS's prices to skyrocket.

In all what I wanted to say is that we need these differences for the good of the industry. It's what maintains an healthy competition. And yes, I totally agree that some developers rwquire a lit more power to enable their vision, it's always been that way. Neveretheless, there will always be limitations, whether be it on consoles or PC, and the thing that makes me not worry about it is that a game's quality is not entirely dependent on the amount of power available.

I game on Sony and Nintendo since the PS1 era, and I've never had a problem with what both companies had to offer on the hardware side. When I was a kid, the only thing that got me playing were the games, and I'm glad tha now as an adult this is still what keeps me going back.

TL;DR: Monopolies are bad for the industry. We need Sony/MS and Nintendo to coexist for the good of all gamers.