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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - IGN N-Podcast 60 and Summary - How Wii doesn't even compare to Current Gen.

Khuutra on 15 December 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

Gravity is not an unproven thing. The specs and system resource usage of NSMBWii is. You claim I have a weak defense, but you think a hard and fast force of nature is a metaphor for how something runs on a computer.

No offense, but do you really think that NSMBW is really pushing the wii to it's limit? What's it doing that Smash Brothers didn't? What is NSMBW doing that is using up more resources that Smash Bros, to such an extent that it had to strip out features present in Smash bros? Your argument from incredulity seems a bit of a stretch. Do you really believe it, or are you just trying to take a debating stance?

This goes for Kylie too:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/04/miyamoto-super-mario-bros-wii-could-be-better-but-the-wiis-t/

Miyamoto himself says that New Super Mario Bros. Wii was already taxing the Wii's processor, and that using the Wii Speak in conjunction with the current gameplay would not have been feasible.



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 15 December 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
KylieDog said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"The lag is ABSOLUTELY no excuse for NSMBW not to have an online component. If some of the Wii's other games have it why can't NSMBW. If much more demanding games period, can have online there is NO reason NSMBW can't."

Just assuming it's not as demanding is not proof. You have to actually show the resource use in terms of hard numbers. You can't just assume it's so and expect the games to be that way.

 

Why do you always post this type statement.   If MW: Reflex can do 12 players online (or is it 10..whatever) I think is safe to say that NSMB Wii can do it too.   Not exactly pushing the system is it.  In any way at all.

 

Posting "but you don't know" when it pretty obvious the answer is a terribly weak defence.  It is on level with saying if you hold up a dinner plate and let it go it won't dropt o the ground, "because you don't know".

Gravity is not an unproven thing. The specs and system resource usage of NSMBWii is. You claim I have a weak defense, but you think a hard and fast force of nature is a metaphor for how something runs on a computer.

No offense, but do you really think that NSMBW is really pushing the wii to it's limit? What's it doing that Smash Brothers didn't? What is NSMBW doing that is using up more resources that Smash Bros, to such an extent that it had to strip out features present in Smash bros? Your argument from incredulity seems a bit of a stretch. Do you really believe it, or are you just trying to take a debating stance?

Huge areas with loads of things going on, while Brawl had either large areas or active areas? Or other things running in those areas that we can't see? Visual are not the only think that uses up the system. Unless you can see everything, you don't know what is going on. Even the shovelware games don't tell precisely how much of the system resources they are using, however unlikely it is they are pushing a system.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Mr Khan on 15 December 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

There is only one of two possibilities with the wii.


If (B) is true then Nintendo has just done an atrocious job, and they should rightly be called out on it. If the wii is meant to compete with the PS360, then it is only fair to directly compare it to the other two, in which case it is overpriced, underpowered, and is missing a ton of functionality. The PS360 will both have motion control in some fashion next year, the wii won't have the same online functionality, horsepower, streamlined multimedia functions, ect. If (B) is true, it's not a different experience, it's a lesser experience. Even if you personally don't mind inputting a 12 digit friend code for every person in each game individually, and can't tell who's playing what without popping in different games, or calling them first to co-ordinate you gaming, the other systems offer something drastically better in their online functionality. If (B) is true then there is no wrongdoing on the part of the press because they are perfectly justified on calling Nintendo out on apathetically offering an inferior system.

IGN is calling it like it sees it. The ones complaining are largely just Nintendo loyalists that would rather have them cup Nintendo's balls while they are working the shaft. That's not how it works. They called the 360 out for it's terrible hardware, they've panned the PS3 for it's atrocious launch, PSN's constant game of catch up to LIVE , it's inferior ports, and stupid failures such as "HOME". It's not isolated to just the problems the wii has. I have a wii, I love my wii for what it is, but I acknowledge it has it's abundance of faults. I listen to Nintendo Voice Chat every week, and I didn't hear anything this week that I disagree with. Trying to say that the enthusiasts press's view of the wii is totally unjustified is just putting fanboy blinders on. It's a good system for children and grandma's to pull out every few months, but for people that actually play games (IE the people that go to discuss them on websites) it's got a host of problems that shouldn't be ignored. I can buy No More Heroes 2 on day 1, and still say that the wii has god awful online functionality, and is missing alot of features for the price it sells at. That doesn't make me or the gamers at IGN raging trolls.

Shouldn't that make it more successful, then? If it's overpriced, underpowered, and lacking in every conventional category, and yet beating the pants off of its competitors, how is it a failure?

 

And no, we're not complaining because we "would rather have them cup Nintendo's balls while they are working the shaft." We're calling them out because their opinion is founded upon misguided ideas. Hiding behind the claim that theirs is a legitimate opinion is a flimsy one, and once again, it's as much about how you say it as what you say. These guys are trolling. They're not trying to incite debate or offer a reasoned opinion, they're trolling for clicks.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

The_vagabond7 on 15 December 2009
Khuutra said:
The_vagabond7 said:
Khuutra said:

All right, maybe I'm not being clear enough here.. Your statement for A suggests something reasonable enoguh - that Nintendo is not directly competing with Microsoft and Sony - but that in itself can have two (or more) very different implications.

The first (let's say) is the one that you list, that they are actively aiming for an audience that Microsoft and Sony do not have and do not want, and are ignoring the audience that the other two have.

The other (unnamed) possibility is that Nintendo is gaining headways into new revenue streams in addition to continuing with parts of their core strategies, and are not competing with Microsoft and Sony in the sense that they don't really give a shit what Microsoft and Sony do.

Are these not two different but legitimate interpretations of that scenario?

No. That's just a kinder rephrasing with market speak of the scenarios I posit. Your first is (A) the second is just (B) with them being too cool to care if they are ignored by the traditional gamer. What is their "core strategy"? To create a system that traditional gamers would enjoy? If so, they are competing with the PS360, even if they say otherwise. Does their "core strategy" have nothing to do with the same market the PS360 are pursuing? Then you're back in the (A) scenario. Either they want the market that the PS360 are going after, or they don't. There isn't a middle ground. Being aloof isn't somehow a more respectable (or sensical) option that makes it so the media is somehow giving them undue grief.

No, it isn't. When I said "core strategy" I was referring specifically to the way that they produce core games (their words). As in, they still cater to the core in addition to undercutting the competition by cutting their way into new markets.

Being in direct competition implies that the actions of Microsoft and Sony would imply that Nintendo takes a reactionary stance to their methods, which is not the same thing as going for a similar market. You can go for the same market - being in competition - without being in direct competition, which is to say they are not being reactionary.

I would say that's actually closer to the truth, though, and it's starting to show - they should have been reactionary in certain places where they were not, and Reggie in particular is starting to publically opine that fact.

 

....So then they are competing, but doing a poor job of it by not reacting to the competition, and because of this IGN shouldn't call them out on the mistakes they've made? Saying you're competing but ignoring the competition, does not mean that you have a new strategy. It means you're stupid for not paying attention to what the competition is doing. Either way, that doesn't earn them a free pass from critisism. If they are competing, even if they are (stupidly) not being reactionary, they are still held accountable for their product in competition with their rivals, and calling them out on it is still justified. It still fits (B) scenario.  Either they are trying to get the same market as the PS360 or they aren't. If They are competing, it doesn't matter the reason they aren't doing a good job.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Khuutra on 15 December 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Khuutra said:

No, it isn't. When I said "core strategy" I was referring specifically to the way that they produce core games (their words). As in, they still cater to the core in addition to undercutting the competition by cutting their way into new markets.

Being in direct competition implies that the actions of Microsoft and Sony would imply that Nintendo takes a reactionary stance to their methods, which is not the same thing as going for a similar market. You can go for the same market - being in competition - without being in direct competition, which is to say they are not being reactionary.

I would say that's actually closer to the truth, though, and it's starting to show - they should have been reactionary in certain places where they were not, and Reggie in particular is starting to publically opine that fact.

....So then they are competing, but doing a poor job of it by not reacting to the competition, and because of this IGN shouldn't call them out on the mistakes they've made? Saying you're competing but ignoring the competition, does not mean that you have a new strategy. It means you're stupid for not paying attention to what the competition is doing. Either way, that doesn't earn them a free pass from critisism. If they are competing, even if they are (stupidly) not being reactionary, they are still held accountable for their product in competition with their rivals, and calling them out on it is still justified. It still fits (B) scenario.  Either they are trying to get the same market as the PS360 or they aren't. If They are competing, it doesn't matter the reason they aren't doing a good job.

My statements have little to nothing to do with IGN's perspective on this: IGN's responsibilities as journalists are very different from mine when it comes to looking at these situations, I am sure you will agree.

I agree they don't earn a free pass from criticism. It's why I've mentionend - several times - that there are aspects in which I'm disappointed in Nintendo's performance this generation. If I were talking about IGN, I wouldn't hav responded to you about the narrowness of your statements, I would have talked about their lack of professionalism and about how calling out Nintendo for not making Link talk or for Zelda games having similar plotlines is almost mind-numbingly stupid. We can get into that discussion if you want, but I don't feel right dissecting the statements of somebody to whom I will never speak.

@KylieDog:

"New Super Mario Bros Wii is taxing the Wii as-is."

"That's crap. Prove it."

"Miyamoto said so himself."

"That's crap, he's lying and lazy. We know this for fact."

Okay I think it is your time to provide proof



Around the Network
The_vagabond7 on 15 December 2009
Mr Khan said:
 

Shouldn't that make it more successful, then? If it's overpriced, underpowered, and lacking in every conventional category, and yet beating the pants off of its competitors, how is it a failure?

 

And no, we're not complaining because we "would rather have them cup Nintendo's balls while they are working the shaft." We're calling them out because their opinion is founded upon misguided ideas. Hiding behind the claim that theirs is a legitimate opinion is a flimsy one, and once again, it's as much about how you say it as what you say. These guys are trolling. They're not trying to incite debate or offer a reasoned opinion, they're trolling for clicks.

Only if you define success as sales, and only if you value sales over the quality of the product. At no point have they claimed the wii was selling poorly, they give credit where credit is due.

 

So the wii does have comprable online functionality, friend to friend networking, multimedia functionality, is in fact better off lacking a gamerscore of anykind, is competitively priced for the technology and functionality being offered? Or is it not competing?

Or are they just being mean?



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Khuutra on 15 December 2009

Is this discussion suddenly about arguing the merits of the Wii? Are we supposed to be arguing with the statements by IGN here?



The_vagabond7 on 15 December 2009
Khuutra said:
Is this discussion suddenly about arguing the merits of the Wii? Are we supposed to be arguing with the statements by IGN here?

I have no idea. I'm just arguing that they are perfectly justfied in critisizing the wii for it's shortcomings, and that the wii doesn't some how get a free pass when they critisize every system. Regardless of whether or not a person thinks that Zelda should have voice acting, they mentioned a great many problems the wii has, and simply calling them trolls is a crass way of trying to cover up the many valid critisisms that they make.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Mr Khan on 15 December 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Shouldn't that make it more successful, then? If it's overpriced, underpowered, and lacking in every conventional category, and yet beating the pants off of its competitors, how is it a failure?

 

And no, we're not complaining because we "would rather have them cup Nintendo's balls while they are working the shaft." We're calling them out because their opinion is founded upon misguided ideas. Hiding behind the claim that theirs is a legitimate opinion is a flimsy one, and once again, it's as much about how you say it as what you say. These guys are trolling. They're not trying to incite debate or offer a reasoned opinion, they're trolling for clicks.

Only if you define success as sales, and only if you value sales over the quality of the product. At no point have they claimed the wii was selling poorly, they give credit where credit is due.

 

So the wii does have comprable online functionality, friend to friend networking, multimedia functionality, is in fact better off lacking a gamerscore of anykind, is competitively priced for the technology and functionality being offered? Or is it not competing?

Or are they just being mean?

I will agree. Wii is sharply inferior on those points, often because it utterly lacks those features and makes no attempt to compensate for them. But this is a non-quantifiable competition. Value is subjective, just as values are subjective. The open market is the only way to level that subjectivity



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Khuutra on 15 December 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Khuutra said:
Is this discussion suddenly about arguing the merits of the Wii? Are we supposed to be arguing with the statements by IGN here?

I have no idea. I'm just arguing that they are perfectly justfied in critisizing the wii for it's shortcomings, and that the wii doesn't some how get a free pass when they critisize every system. Regardless of whether or not a person thinks that Zelda should have voice acting, they mentioned a great many problems the wii has, and simply calling them trolls is a crass way of trying to cover up the many valid critisisms that they make.

If that's the case then I would argue that the dissatisfaction here (while undoubtedly partially caused by ruffled feathers) also has somehting to do with the fact that their method of statement lacks any kind of journalistic professionalism, or even any kind of critical mode or regularity. They make several unqualified statements concerning company resource allocation for various projects and make disparaging remarks that would be tremendously difficult or impossible to verify, and openly state in the podcast that they say these things solely for the purpose of being inflammatory.

Is that enough of a reason to be dissatisfied with their journalistic or editorial dialogue, ignoring my avatar?