Smashchu2 said:
disolitude said:
Smashchu2 said:
disolitude said:
griffinA said:
disolitude said:
griffinA said:
Wow, I mean, I know this happens whenever Malstrom gets posted but it's particularly hard to swallow now.
Instead of actually thinking about and having a big discussion about the actual important points Malstrom makes, people just zero in on one insignificant point he made somewhere in the piece and argue against it. I won't lie, on entering this thread I did expect pettty bickering, but I expected bickering related to the important arguments Malstrom made.
Can we move on from talking about whether Nintendo's studios are better than Sony's and talk about whether overall Malstrom is right or not? Or perhaps someone could write a rebuttel to the piece itself?
|
thats because this article is as pedestrian and obvious as any hes ever posted. Without cherrypicking on the points he got wrong yuo'd have a 15 post thread.
|
Then maybe you could argue how it could improve itself? Or how the whole article is incorrect by writing a similar one yourself? Or demostrate how it is so 'pedestrian', as you put it?
|
I don't get paid to write stuff nor do I have the time to write my opinions. This perticular piece he wrote is about as obvious as it gets.
Point 1. Nintendo is always doomed in the media becuase their consoles don't sell 3rd party software - statement is true. Media doesn't like it when you don't share the love.
Point 2. Nintendo wii is blamed if a 3rd paty game doesnt sell well, not the company that made the crappy game. Lots of good Wii 3rd party games sold less than Deca Sports and Carnival games so I am not sure I agree. But yes, wii gets the blame becuase it hasn't proven it will sell adult themed, games that are not nintendo made.
Point 3. Xbox and ps3 get the credit when 3rd party game succeeds. Complete BS. GTA4 is a bad example because MS and Sony advertised that game to death. So they did get partial credit for its success.
Point 4. Xbox and PS3 dont get blamed if a 3rd party sells badly, intead publishers get blamed for making a bad game. This is sometimes true too (Mirrors edge, Valk Chronicles)
Not a single point he makes is concrete and all can be argued both ways.
|
Uhhhh, besides the fact you were most off base most of the time.
- Statement is not true. What the hell is wrong with you? (Hint: How is the press a third party developer?)
- Again, how the hell is Nintendo or the Wii responsable for a game not doing well. Did they personally sabotage them? Unless you can give a reason why the system is too blame, your wrong.
- Yes they do. The third party is usually ignored in Sony and Microsoft's case
- Point 4 is always true.
|
haha...read my post carefully.
1. It is true that media makes nintendo look like they are doomed. Im not saying nintendo is doomed but that media always writes about that. Media sees the lack of 3rd party games and how its jsut nintendo profiting off the wii and usually base their asumptions off that. They are wrong, but that statement is true.
2. Media blames Wii when a Wii title fails. IS this not true? I believe it is. Every time a high profile game fails on the wii we see stories that wii doesnt sell games. So I believe this is true.
the other 2 we agree on...
|
Ok, I don't follow you hear. I reply based on the assumption that you are trying to deny Malstrom's claims (by saying "Not a single point he makes is concrete and all can be argued both ways."). I am defending his claims. However, from what you've posted, you say you are agreeing with malstrom's claims. So what is it?
|
point 1...we agreed that Nintendo isn't doomed, but mainstream media writes that it is because wii doesnt sell 3rd party software and doesnt get 3rd party support...there really is no way to argue this the other way so I apologize...not all points he made are lame.
point 2...We agreed that Nintendo gets blamed when 3rd party game sells not the 3rd party company for making a bad game. Ok so What about dead rising? Nintendo didnt get blamed for that. Nintendo only gets blamed when they get a game exclusively desinged for the wii, like boom blox and it gets great reviews and it doesnt sell.
point 3...we agreed that media makes 360 and ps3 get all the credit for 3rd party success. GTA4 used as example. But what about a game like Left 4 Dead? Its roots are on the PC, no one is saying 360 made that game a success...and its made by Valve, they always get the credit even before a game is released. Cause their shit dont stink... FF13 is another example, the square gods are blessing us with this game...not ps3 and 360.
point 4...we agreed that 3rd party gets blamed if a game fails on ps3 and 360. Except if that game is a PC port like orange box, in which case why the fudge would anyone buy the console version...or if that game is sonic unleashed in which case ps360 versions suck and sold poorly because the motion controls are nowhere to be found like in the obviously supoerior Wii version(when looking at the sales).
See...one can find examples that support their arguments either way.
