Yea, no shit it doesn't... because it wouldn't sell at that price (or $60) to basically anyone today, whether they've already played it before or not. Which is the point. You can sell me a $60 Bayonetta 2 on release because at that point in time, it is worth that to me (in fact it was worth enough to sell the Wii U itself)... but a $60 Super Metroid would be a non-starter for basically anyone, because it's not of equivalent worth today... not to me... likely not to you... not to basically anyone. So your "statistics" are crap, because Bayonetta 2, plus Super Metroid isn't a universal "+2" to the Wii U, because they're not two games of the same value today. Pretty much every Dreamcast game I would list however would have been worth a $60 purchase at the time, as that was basically what I was paying for each of them back then. The Wii U's problem is the comparative lack of titles that are desirable enough for me to buy them for $60, $50, $40 or even $30... so it goes mostly unused. Which makes it a far worse console to me.
It'd be the trend everywhere if your idea of "downplay" is to suggest that old software that aren't unique to the console, aren't of equivalent worth to brand new releases that are (and actually make use of that system's hardware).
I mean... why the fuck are Nintendo even releasing new consoles? They should have just stuck with the Wii forever and kept releasing games there. Nobody would ever be able to fuck with their library then, and because specs are irrelevant, it'd continue to dominate the market forever at $199!
EDIT: Also, if you're gonna throw around the term "fanboy" as a way of belittling my posts, and least have the dignity to not do it whilst sporting a Luigi hat avatar, lol.
First of all, that model isn't fully backwards compatible, and it has other (hardware) problems too, so it wouldn't be the "de facto" greatest console of all time.
But provided that it were fully backwards compatible and that it was equally reliable as the PS1 and PS2, than how is it NOT better than a PS1 or PS2 when you can literally play all the games from 3 consoles on it and experience the exact same game experience? Why would you even connect a PS1 and/or PS2 to your TV when your fully BC PS3 can play all the games you ever need?
I thought that model was fully backwards compatible. I thought it was the one with the actual PS2 hardware on it that wasn't running an emulator.
My only point is that BC and emulation isn't a feature that should weight terribly heavily. It's not something that should be ignored but in 2016 we've all played Super Metroid on several different platforms and we all know how to get it for free so it doesn't really mean much anymore. Comparatively speaking the Wii U Virtual Console has been terribly disappointing anyway. The Wii one had a shitload more games at this point in it's life. If they did something like put some rare games or games that never came out here (remember when they put out Dracula X on the Wii VC? That was pretty awesome) or added leaderboards or something that would give the games value beyond just dumping the same ROM we've all been playing for 20 years. I mean, the Dreamcast could run emulated games too. The SNES was too powerful but it ran Genesis and NES ROMs pretty well. There is literally no difference between the Mario 3 ROM that you could play on your Dreamcast in 2000 and the one on the Wii U store right now.
Super Metroid is worth about 73 dollars less than it was in 1994 because I can download it for free in about 30 seconds total (counting the time it takes to find it and download time) and play a version that's better emulated than the VC version and has the same amount of features.
About BC not weighing heavily. What I said earlier, likely before you picked in, and what got a bit buried under all Synth's nonsensical ramblings, is that if you compare the number of quality titles available on the Wii U (all included) with the number of quality titles on the DC, the DC is no match.
How much you weigh the presence of the VC is irrelevant. When a person buys a Wii U today (in its current life, which happens to be the subject of this thread) the Wii U offers WAY more quality games than the DC ever did during its lifetime. There's just an enormous amount of content available on the Wii U. Many of the best games ever made are readily available. The DC didn't have that. It didn't come even close.
So my stance is that if you buy a Wii U right now, during its lifetime, you'll have more and better choice in gaming than you did when you bought a DC during its lifetime.
Yea, no shit it doesn't... because it wouldn't sell at that price (or $60) to basically anyone today, whether they've already played it before or not. Which is the point.
Look, you're constantly contradicting yourself. It's tiresome. Does the lower price point of Super Metroid in the VC compared to the SNES days take ANYTHING AT ALL away from the quality of that game?
In your troubled mind it apparently does, so I'm not even going to try to reason anymore.
EDIT: Also, if you're gonna throw around the term "fanboy" as a way of belittling my posts, and least have the dignity to not do it whilst sporting a Luigi hat avatar, lol.
I mean... why the fuck are Nintendo even releasing new consoles? They should have just stuck with the Wii forever and kept releasing games there. Nobody would ever be able to fuck with their library then, and because specs are irrelevant, it'd continue to dominate the market forever at $199!
You seem to be downplaying PS2's capabilities versus Dreamcast. I don't feel they were as close as you're implying.
First off Dreamcast was an easy system to develop on. Being able to harness the most of the system right out of the gate is why it's games never really grew much more impressive then what was available at launch.
That's the direct opposite of PS2, which was known to be more difficult to create games on, and had a heck of a bottleneck. Over time as developers grew more familiar with the hardware, you could see the difference in the games. It was clearly a more powerful piece of hardware, and while Dreamcast might be able to run the same games, it wouldn't be nearly at the level PS2 was.
Titles like Tekken 5, Soul Calibur 2, God of War 2, Devil May Cry, Onimusha 2, MGS2, Gran Turismo 4, etc wouldn't look nearly as good on Dreamcast.
I'm not trying to downplay PS2 at all, really. But, it seems people downplay Dreamcast a good deal by comparison. Even at the time, when Sony said things like "Toy Story graphics!" and "66 million polys per second!", I knew it was bullshit. A lot of people did. A lot of the games you mention, I feel, are examples where devs came to terms w/ PS2's architecture and really made it work for them. They did tricks the PS2 wasn't necessarily built for in mind, but they found ways around them. Just like any system. But we never got a chance to really see that with Dreamcast games.
Fwiw I think MGS2 was definitely within Dreamcast's capabilities. It's just that Kojima's artists were so skilled they covered up the technical limitations with a very slick art style. On an objective level there isn't much to MGS2 that the Dreamcast wasn't already doing at the time tbh.
And yeah, Dreamcast was easy to develop for, but so was the PS1. Yet there's a giant gulf in quality between Tekken 1 and Tekken 3, noticeable improvements between Resident Evil and Resident Evil 3, etc. Dreamcast wasn't around long enough for developers to get to the phase of doing insane tricks to push the system's capabilities, essentially.
Arguably what you're saying can also apply to, say, PS4; it's a very easy system to develop for (relatively speaking), but I don't think we've seen its potential tapped out yet. You have a game like Dreams that looks as good as it does, using nothing but compute, saving the CPU cores for game logic more or less. We haven't seen a lot of devs specifically target GPGPU compute the way Cerny's team envisioned. Much the same way, there were probably a good deal of technical tricks and features to Dreamcast only a very small sample of games started to utilize, before it was discontinued. I feel that's highly plausible.
So what you're basically saying is that specs DON'T MATTER. Because if they actually did, the PSVita had won the race, and PS3 had won its generation by a landslide and it would've been the console every single dev had developed the base version of their multiplat games for.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Your problem is you're being extremely binary about all of this. People don't base their decisions off of solely one factor. Specs do matter, but where it falls on the priority scale is determined by other things that also happen to matter. You already know this, but are ignoring such in order to continue supporting your POV, which just doesn't hold up.
Core gamers, including you no doubt, were mocking the Wii about pretty much everything. Its name, its casual games, all the shovelware, ... you name it.
Yeah, but with the Wii U they couldn't count on it anymore, so that's why they didn't buy one. I completely understand now... If only Nintendo had developed good games for the Wii U, so that core gamers would buy it...
Before I actually address this point specifically, we need to be clear about the Wii. I already went into depth how the Wii managed to be a successful anomaly. Never was I mentioning the term that way to exclude out of the scope of my logic, because it actually supports my POV. Why? Because I never said that core gamers care ONLY about specs/power! If a system has enough of other features to offset soft specs, core gamers are more likely to still give it a fair shake. That's something the Wii had, which is why it did pretty well.
Of course, the Wii U didn't have that. It had good games, yes, but that wasn't enough to make up for it being barely better than (at the time) 7-8 year old consoles while having a worst online network and arguably a worst/more ergonomically unfriendly controller. Too much worked against it in addition to the weak specs that caused it to essentially fail in sales.
Again, it's not a binary thing whatsoever, and it'd benefit you to not present it as such.
Btw, I never ridiculed the Wii actually. I got it not too long after I got a PS3, and I still play it to this day. In fact, I'm fending to play some Galaxy 2 over the weekend
And there we are: like I said earlier: a certain type of people care about specs. You and a couple of other people. Unfortunately not the majority.
A console does need that majority to help develop an install base though. And for that it needs games, or it needs something other defining. Mostly it needs the market to be ready for it.
It doesn't really matter if the majority care about specs in regards to home consoles because they're going to follow what the early adopters do anyway, and the early adopters DO tend to care about specs. They set the trend, and others follow. And actually, this does extend to other industries too.
If the iPhone was a slow buggy piece of crap, the respected technophiles who reviewed it back in the day would have panned it, which means the celebrities who ended up endorsing it would have passed, which means the mainstream who buy what their celebrities have would have been looking at some other product to try. Everything is linked together and you don't acknowledge this at all in your stance.
Or let's say the celebrities endorsed it anyway. Marketing lies or whatever. Well, the mainstream would eventually realize it was a buggy piece of crap, and stop buying it. Things would reach their logical conclusion anyway, and this particular conclusion actually proves that the majority ALSO care about specs; they just care about it in a different way than the core technophiles and early adopters is all.
It's not necessarily hard to piece this together, either :/
Look, you're constantly contradicting yourself. It's tiresome. Does the lower price point of Super Metroid in the VC compared to the SNES days take ANYTHING AT ALL away from the quality of that game?
The price doesn't no. The age of the game, and how it compares to games today does however. When Super Metroid was first released it was one of the most amazing gaming experiences I have ever had. As a result it was easily worth the $73 to experience it. Even if I had never played it before, that would not be the case today, because times have changed and a game that blew my mind in 1994 would not do the same in 2016. It wouldn't for basically anyone, so it can't sell for that price today. So the game itself is exactly the same as it was before... but its perceived quality isn't... because that's something that's subjective to each person, and isn't even constant for the same person. As I said before, Sonic Adventure was amazing to me when I got my Dreamcast on launch day. Totally worth the $60. Today I think it's pretty "eh".. and would maybe pay $5 for it (its current XBLA price). Same exact game, different perceived quality. Times change. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.
About BC not weighing heavily. What I said earlier, likely before you picked in, and what got a bit buried under all Synth's nonsensical ramblings, is that if you compare the number of quality titles available on the Wii U (all included) with the number of quality titles on the DC, the DC is no match.
How much you weigh the presence of the VC is irrelevant. When a person buys a Wii U today (in its current life, which happens to be the subject of this thread) the Wii U offers WAY more quality games than the DC ever did during its lifetime. There's just an enormous amount of content available on the Wii U. Many of the best games ever made are readily available. The DC didn't have that. It didn't come even close.
So my stance is that if you buy a Wii U right now, during its lifetime, you'll have more and better choice in gaming than you did when you bought a DC during its lifetime.
What % of games don't work on the 60GB PS3? Is it a significant percent?
What metric are you using to judge that the WIi U has way more quality games than the Dreamcast? Going by average review scores The Dreamcast has 49 games above 80% and 12 games above 90% and The Wii U has 24 games above 80 and 4 above 90. It's quite a significant difference no matter how you slice it, especially considering the Wii U has more years under it's belt. The Dreamcast literally has more games with an average over 80 than the Wii U has with an average of over 50.
Also - you might want to edit your post. You are attributing a bunch of quotes to me that I never said.
The chart doesn't update past Europe's first DC 'birthday' and also does not include other territories outside of the major territories, however marginal. You couldn't say that with certainty. The only thing we know is that it had to at least have sold 8.2M by it's second birthday going by JP release.
And yeah, Dreamcast was easy to develop for, but so was the PS1. Yet there's a giant gulf in quality between Tekken 1 and Tekken 3, noticeable improvements between Resident Evil and Resident Evil 3, etc. Dreamcast wasn't around long enough for developers to get to the phase of doing insane tricks to push the system's capabilities, essentially.
Arguably what you're saying can also apply to, say, PS4; it's a very easy system to develop for (relatively speaking), but I don't think we've seen its potential tapped out yet. You have a game like Dreams that looks as good as it does, using nothing but compute, saving the CPU cores for game logic more or less. We haven't seen a lot of devs specifically target GPGPU compute the way Cerny's team envisioned. Much the same way, there were probably a good deal of technical tricks and features to Dreamcast only a very small sample of games started to utilize, before it was discontinued. I feel that's highly plausible.
Good point. Its certainly possible, but I still don't think Dreamcast could touch PS2. Regardless of what tricks are used, there's a limit as to what a given piece hardware is capable of pushing.
Then why do you keep going on about the price when we were talking quality? Why did you even bring up to begin with that you paid $73 for Super Metroid and that it isn't $73 worth anymore to you now?
Don't you see how that doesn't make any sense at all?
Also, the ongoing retro hype where people pay hundreds of dollars for boxed copies of Earthbound and the likes apparently disagrees with you about how valuable older games are.
The Wii U has roughly 2000 games available if you count Wii U, Wii, indie games and VC. Wii alone is 1260 games fyi.
The DC has around 700 titles total.
Statistically speaking, it's highly doubtful that the DC has comparatively so much more quality titles that it can make up for the 1300 title difference in quantity. Even if all 700 DC titles were quality (in reality it's only a fraction of that), that would still mean that 65% of the Wii U's library could be trash, and it would still have 700 quality titles.[/QUOTE]
The Wii U has roughly 2000 games available if you count Wii U, Wii, indie games and VC. Wii alone is 1260 games fyi.
The DC has around 700 titles total.
Statistically speaking, it's highly doubtful that the DC has comparatively so much more quality titles that it can make up for the 1300 title difference in quantity. Even if all 700 DC titles were quality (in reality it's only a fraction of that), that would still mean that 65% of the Wii U's library could be trash, and it would still have 700 quality titles.
Metacritic is a statistic. It is the average of review scores. That is the very definition of a statistic.
The argument for the Dreamcast has always been that it is a top heavy system that released a bunch of quality titles in an extremely short amount of time. Using only the gross number of video games released for the system completely ignores that. If you want to argue against the fact that the Dreamcast was an unusually top heavy system then some measure of quality has to be introduced.
The chart doesn't update past Europe's first DC 'birthday' and also does not include other territories outside of the major territories, however marginal. You couldn't say that with certainty. The only thing we know is that it had to at least have sold 8.2M by it's second birthday going by JP release.
Don't use the chart, it's incomplete and Sega had to have adjusted regional shipments considering totals they'd given periodically don't square with added annual shipments. It does include Asia though, no official markets are really missing or unaccounted for from what I can tell.
The 8.2 million shipped figure was given out in their 2001 annual report so that's technically 2.5 years of sell-in. We can say with absolute certainty that Dreamcast didn't sell 9 million units within 2 years because less than 8.2 million units even existed at that point.
Then why do you keep going on about the price when we were talking quality? Why did you even bring up to begin with that you paid $73 for Super Metroid and that it isn't $73 worth anymore to you now?
Don't you see how that doesn't make any sense at all?
Also, the ongoing retro hype where people pay hundreds of dollars for boxed copies of Earthbound and the likes apparently disagrees with you about how valuable older games are.
I mention the price because the two are linked. The worth that people attribute to a game is usually reflected in the pricing. Companies want to charge as much as they believe a customer would be willing to pay for a game. So if they're pricing it low for a "new" copy (as digital always is) then it's because it's not believed to be worth more than that.
That some games sell for higher than default prices on the used market does not say anything concrete about the value of old games in general (the overwhelming majority are far, far cheaper over time)... it simply shows that some old games are of greater worth to some customers... because, again, the game's worth is subjective, and changes on a per person basis. I don't own Panzer Dragoon Saga (though I'd really like to play it), because fuck paying $600+ for it. This doesn't actually mean that Panzer Dragoon Saga is objectively worth 10 Bloodbornes. However, to someone somewhere, it probably is, and the scarcity of the game makes the valuation of that work (let's say 100 people want it that badly, and there are 100 copies up for sale). To be honest though, many of those 100 are probably not even going to play it, and are buying it for its collector value, and not because they actually want to play it.. so won't even unwrap it. This is also true of many classic SNES carts... especially mint boxed copies, because the best way to keep the game in that condition is to not play it ever. The "game" part of the equation itself often won't reflect this at all. Radiant Silvergun for Saturn floats around eBay for $200. Yet when made easily available on the 360 for $15 (and superior to the Saturn version), few people bothered with it.
Then why do you keep going on about the price when we were talking quality? Why did you even bring up to begin with that you paid $73 for Super Metroid and that it isn't $73 worth anymore to you now?
Don't you see how that doesn't make any sense at all?
Also, the ongoing retro hype where people pay hundreds of dollars for boxed copies of Earthbound and the likes apparently disagrees with you about how valuable older games are.
I don't know. But it's not fully compatible. And the 60Gb PS3 is not exactly the best model ever produced either on top of that.
If you had read my posts....
Not Metacritic. Statistics.
The Wii U has roughly 2000 games available if you count Wii U, Wii, indie games and VC. Wii alone is 1260 games fyi.
The DC has around 700 titles total.
Statistically speaking, it's highly doubtful that the DC has comparatively so much more quality titles that it can make up for the 1300 title difference in quantity. Even if all 700 DC titles were quality (in reality it's only a fraction of that), that would still mean that 65% of the Wii U's library could be trash, and it would still have 700 quality titles.
The 60gig ps3 is fully compatible. The only games that don't run are extremely obscure. You're talking less than a tenth of a percent. And even those ran, but with minor issues.
If you're going to be THAT pedantic there were models of the original Xbox that had issues with compatibility with a handful of titles due to a change in hard drive speeds. Were those not fully compatible either?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Your problem is you're being extremely binary about all of this. People don't base their decisions off of solely one factor. Specs do matter, but where it falls on the priority scale is determined by other things that also happen to matter. You already know this, but are ignoring such in order to continue supporting your POV, which just doesn't hold up.
I'm being "binary" about it (not really, but I'm being less nuanced, sure) because you've done nothing but overstating the importance of specs.
They aren't that important. They are a factor, like everything is a factor. But not an important one, and there is plenty of (strong) evidence that you keep ignoring because it undermines your POV.
Oh come on, lol.
First it's an anomaly.
Now it did "pretty well". (It's only the 2nd best selling home console EVER, but let's not let that little fact get in the way, shall we?)
It had good games, yes, but that wasn't enough to make up for it being barely better than (at the time) 7-8 year old consoles while having a worst online network and arguably a worst/more ergonomically unfriendly controller. Too much worked against it in addition to the weak specs that caused it to essentially fail in sales.
The Wii U has a wealth of controllers, but let's not let that little fact get in our way. Unlike the DC. But let's not let that little fact get in the way either.
Btw, I never ridiculed the Wii actually. I got it not too long after I got a PS3, and I still play it to this day. In fact, I'm fending to play some Galaxy 2 over the weekend
It doesn't really matter if the majority care about specs in regards to home consoles because they're going to follow what the early adopters do anyway, and the early adopters DO tend to care about specs. They set the trend, and others follow. And actually, this does extend to other industries too.
Of course it extends to other markets. Only you said the home console market was "special". It isn't.
And the masses do NOT necessarily follow early adopters. Early adopters bought the N-Gage. Early adopters buy everything. They're dumb like that. Paying more for what oftentimes are unfinished or unbalanced tech products. I mean, I get why they do it. But please don't go portray them as "trendsetters". They're the easiest bait for vendors is what they are.
If the iPhone was a slow buggy piece of crap, the respected technophiles who reviewed it back in the day would have panned it, which means the celebrities who ended up endorsing it would have passed, which means the mainstream who buy what their celebrities have would have been looking at some other product to try. Everything is linked together and you don't acknowledge this at all in your stance.
Ermm... nope. Iirc there was some crazy design flaw about the antenna in one of the early iPhones. Not something most of your respected technophiles mentioned in their reviews.
Many of those people are enthusiasts. They're hardly critical as long as they can play with their new toys. iPhones were/are a status symbol too.
The 60gig ps3 is fully compatible. The only games that don't run are extremely obscure. You're talking less than a tenth of a percent. And even those ran, but with minor issues.
I mention the price because the two are linked. The worth that people attribute to a game is usually reflected in the pricing. Companies want to charge as much as they believe a customer would be willing to pay for a game. So if they're pricing it low for a "new" copy (as digital always is) then it's because it's not believed to be worth more than that.
Similar to Bob Dylan, the Dreamcast had a surfeit of games that, had they appeared on one console, would make that console famous. Except all these games (songs) came from one console (musician.)
I'm sure the Wii U was real nice too. Like James Taylor.
Lol no, it's a collection of opinions that are artificially quantified. Quite biased towards the bigger releases at that too, if only because many smaller releases weren't even reviewed by many outlets.
Why are bigger gaming magazines opnions weighed in more heavily than smaller ones? Because the editor of a bigger magazine is supposedly better at reviewing games than another reviewer from a small outlet?
Honestly, Metacritic numbers are arbitrary and fabricated.
The argument for the Dreamcast has always been that it is a top heavy system that released a bunch of quality titles in an extremely short amount of time. Using only the gross number of video games released for the system completely ignores that. If you want to argue against the fact that the Dreamcast was an unusually top heavy system then some measure of quality has to be introduced.
Of course the DC is the best system ever produced, lol. No other console got so much quality games in the same period of time because only the best developers were allowed to produce games for the DC, and as it happened they made their best works ever in those 3 years time. You know what: let's forget about the rest of video game history entirely. The pinnacle of gaming was on that one platform and centered in those 3 years time. Too bad the world is too dumb to understand that, since obviously nobody bought a DC. Luckily there were some "enlightened" out there.
Really though, the DC is NOT an exceptional console. Only in your dreams maybe. It has a similar amount of crap as other consoles, and even if it has a statistically significant bigger amount of quality, then it still wouldn't make up for the wealth of choice you have on the Wii U.
The amount people are willing to pay does define a game's worth though. If people aren't willing to pay for it, then it's not worth that much, even if the seller is asking for the amount. I could put up a game on Steam and list it for $1000. You probably wouldn't buy it, because you consider it not to be worth that (rightly so). In the case of the used SNES games you mentioned earlier, their worth is a result of the amounts people are willing to pay to own them. If nobody wants it, the cart can often be had for cheap, if some people want it really, really badly, then it may sell for hundreds. The seller can set the price, but they can't establish its worth... they can only do their best to predict the worth others will assign to it, and price according. Often they get this horribly wrong and the game tanks as a result.
Nintendo prices the retro games at various tiers, not dissimilar to how many new games are priced in the market today, with $60 being the default retail price, $40 being the cost of some more budget retail release, and prices like $20. $15, $10 being assigned to smaller, digital indie releases. These are the seller selecting a price they believe the buyer will accept. It doesn't mean the buyer will though, and so some games simply fail to sell in decent numbers as a result.
The pricing is still linked to perceived value, quality, whatever else you want to attribute to someone's decision to purchase a game for any given amount of money. This is still subjective, and still changes from person to person, and is why even in the infinitely stocked digital space price cuts are often temporarily made in order to reach customers that attribute a lower worth to that same game.
I don't want to have to go over this again. It should simply be common sense.
Lol no, it's a collection of opinions that are artificially quantified. Quite biased towards the bigger releases at that too, if only because many smaller releases weren't even reviewed by many outlets.
Why are bigger gaming magazines opnions weighed in more heavily than smaller ones? Because the editor of a bigger magazine is supposedly better at reviewing games than another reviewer from a small outlet?
Honestly, Metacritic numbers are arbitrary and fabricated.
You've actually just typed out something I mostly agree with! (though I wouldn't go as far as "fabricated")
You're right in that metacritic is simply a collection of opinions, no more valid than your opinion or mine. If you think a game is great, then it doesn't matter if IGN gave it a 3/10 (e.g. Godhand)... meanwhile, if you think a game sucks, it doesn't matter if it scores 80+ (hey there Football Manager).
There's just one small problem though... this kinda contradicts your "objective" search for the great titles in a software lineup by means of...
The pricing is still linked to perceived value, quality, whatever else you want to attribute to someone's decision to purchase a game for any given amount of money. This is still subjective, and still changes from person to person, and is why even in the infinitely stocked digital space price cuts are often temporarily made in order to reach customers that attribute a lower worth to that same game.
I don't want to have to go over this again. It should simply be common sense.
No, common sense would be if you didn't bring up pricing at all.
The only reason you're bringing in pricing is because you have no valid argument to counter that the Wii U has way more quality games overall than the DC. So you're trying to downplay that little fact by making quality games like Super Metroid (which received and still receives universal acclaim) look not so valuable. It's not because you can buy a game cheaper now though, that it is of lesser quality. Super Metroid is a timeless classic.
And we're back to your lack of reading skills. I never referred to Metacritic as the source to objectively define the quality of a game. "Highly rated" doesn't mean "Metacritic". I mean, you also rate games, don't you? You're grasping at straws.
What I said (but this is very hard for you to grasp as we've already seen) is that statistically, every console has a percentage of games that are quality, and the rest is not so good.
The DC has a percentage of quality games. The Wii U has a percentage of quality games.
In the real world, not the fictional DC fanboy one, the percentage of quality games on most consoles is similar. But let's be kind to the DC and assume that it has a high percentage of quality games.
Well, even with a high percentage, it's nigh impossible for the DC to get more quality games in absolute numbers than the Wii U, simply because of the sheer amount of games the Wii U has available. Even if the Wii U has a much smaller percentage of quality games than the DC, it would still have more quality games in absolute numbers.
They're both shite consoles that deserved their terrible sales despite a handful of classic games, but I actually bought a WiiU, rather than just sneer derisively at it as I did the Dreamcast, so I guess I think the WiiU is better? Not exactly a win for Nintendo though mind.
It's kind of like asking which is better, a dog turd or rabbit droppings, really.
They're both shite consoles that deserved their terrible sales despite a handful of classic games, but I actually bought a WiiU, rather than just sneer derisively at it as I did the Dreamcast, so I guess I think the WiiU is better? Not exactly a win for Nintendo though mind.
It's kind of like asking which is better, a dog turd or rabbit droppings, really.
No common sense would be if you didn't bring up pricing at all.
The only reason you're bringing in pricing is because you have no valid argument to counter that the Wii U has way more quality games overall than the DC. So you're trying to downplay that little fact by making quality games like Super Metroid (which received and still receive universal acclaim) look not so valuable. It's not because you can buy a game cheaper now though, that it is of lesser quality.
And we're back to your lack of reading skills. I never referred to Metacritic as the source to objectively define the quality of a game.
What I said (but this is very hard for you to grasp as we've already seen) is that statistically, every console has a percentage of games that are quality, and the rest is not so good.
The DC has a percentage of quality games. The Wii U has a percentage of quality games.
In the real world, not the fictional DC fanboy one, the percentage of quality games on most consoles is similar. But let's be kind to the DC and assume that it has a high percentage of quality games.
Well, even with a high percentage, it's nigh impossible for the DC to get more quality games in absolute numbers than the Wii U, simply because of the sheer amount of games the Wii U has available. Even if the Wii U has a much smaller percentage of quality games than the DC, it would still have more quality games in absolute numbers.
No, the only reason I bring up pricing, is because it's actually a good measure of the quality of a console's software line-up to me. The better I expect a gaming experience to be, the more money (and time) I'll be inclined to spend on it.. and the console that provides it. The price Nintendo sells the game for isn't actually of great importance, only my willingness to match it. Because the Wii U offers so few games that I'm wiling to shell out for, I view it's software library as poor and use it rarely. This obviously isn't case for someone that owns 60 Wii U games (especially if that's 60 Wii U games purchased for $60 each that they consider money well spent). The quality of the software library is subjective in this regards. It's of low quality to me, and not to them.
And I didn't fail to read your post btw... I simply took the liberty of applying some logic to it for you, seeing as you didn't appear to have thought that far ahead when making that comment. You didn't specify Metacritic as the source to objectively define the quality of a game... but why does that even matter? What source would you suggest I look at to define "the number of highly rated games available for a system", and why would it be any more objective than Metacritic is?
Space Invaders was also "universally acclaimed" on release (moreso than Super Metroid ever was)... how useful is this information today? Super Metroid is only "universally acclaimed" today insofar as those that ever bother to mention it tend to still hold it in high regards.. the average player today won't touch it, like they won't touch any SNES game. It has its place in history, but it's not factually great as a game in 2016. Most people that would hold that view would have encountered it back on the SNES.
This is mostly because the port was a rush-job handled by Genki rather than Sega AM2 themselves. The Dreamcast certainly could have handled an accurate port of VF3, as both Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive 2 are noticeably better than even the Model 3 VF3 graphically.
At least it didn't end up like Sega Rally 2 (ported with Windows CE).
Lol no, it's a collection of opinions that are artificially quantified. Quite biased towards the bigger releases at that too, if only because many smaller releases weren't even reviewed by many outlets.
Why are bigger gaming magazines opnions weighed in more heavily than smaller ones? Because the editor of a bigger magazine is supposedly better at reviewing games than another reviewer from a small outlet?
Honestly, Metacritic numbers are arbitrary and fabricated.
Even if it heavily favors bigger releases (which I would argue works in the Wii U's favor anyway because in 2016 smaller releases are more likely to be discovered and reviewed than the were on the early internet) that still doesn't make up for the fact that the Dreamcast has twice as many 80+ games.
Of course the DC is the best system ever produced, lol. No other console got so much quality games in the same period of time because only the best developers were allowed to produce games for the DC, and as it happened they made their best works ever in those 3 years time. You know what: let's forget about the rest of video game history entirely. The pinnacle of gaming was on that one platform and centered in those 3 years time. Too bad the world is too dumb to understand that, since obviously nobody bought a DC. Luckily there were some "enlightened" out there.
Really though, the DC is NOT an exceptional console. Only in your dreams maybe. It has a similar amount of crap as other consoles, and even if it has a statistically significant bigger amount of quality, then it still wouldn't make up for the wealth of choice you have on the Wii U.
Now you're just creating a strawman. I never said any of this. The title of the thread is "What had the better life, the Dreamcast or Wii U". The Dreamcast isn't even the best Sega console of all time. It definately had a better life than the Wii U though.
And I didn't fail to read your post btw... I simply took the liberty of applying some logic to it for you, seeing as you didn't appear to have thought that far ahead when making that comment.
You didn't specify Metacritic as the source to objectively define the quality of a game... but why does that even matter? What source would you suggest I look at to define "the number of highly rated games available for a system", and why would it be any more objective than Metacritic is?
It doesn't matter, but you just made it seem as if I was referring to Metacritic and as if that was a big fallacy in my logic that you, in a moment of brilliance, had discovered or something. I wasn't referring to Metacritic though.
What it really was, rather than a moment of brilliance, was your poor reading comprehension letting you down.
I see no need to suggest any source. I'm not even interested in that. I explained once again in my previous post how it statistically works, how statistically it's almost impossible for the DC to have a higher number of quality titles in absolute numbers.
But you simply ignore all of that. Potentially because it's too hard to comprehend for you?
I'm done with this nonsense. Will no longer reply to you, just so you know.
Space Invaders was also "universally acclaimed" on release (moreso than Super Metroid ever was)... how useful is this information today? Super Metroid is only "universally acclaimed" today insofar as those that ever bother to mention it tend to still hold it in high regards.. the average player today won't touch it, like they won't touch any SNES game. It has its place in history, but it's not factually great as a game in 2016. Most people that would hold that view would have encountered it back on the SNES.
Again, this is you extrapolating your own biased SEGA view to the rest of the world.
There are plenty of indie developers out there trying to replicate Metroidvania style games... in 2016. They study Super Metroid for that very reason... in 2016.
Even if it heavily favors bigger releases (which I would argue works in the Wii U's favor anyway because in 2016 smaller releases are more likely to be discovered and reviewed than the were on the early internet) that still doesn't make up for the fact that the Dreamcast has twice as many 80+ games.
How does it work in the Wii U's favour when you don't have Gamerankings scores for NES, SNES, N64 and other platforms?
And again: going by review aggregate sites is really not the way to look at this. I'll quote myself, since you either haven't read this part or else just ignore it because your mind is set on gamerankings as THE best approach.
What I said is that statistically, every console has a percentage of games that are quality, and the rest is not so good.
The DC has a percentage of quality games. The Wii U has a percentage of quality games.
In the real world, not the fictional DC fanboy one, the percentage of quality games on most consoles is similar. But let's be kind to the DC and assume that it has a high percentage of quality games.
Well, even with a high percentage, it's nigh impossible for the DC to get more quality games in absolute numbers than the Wii U, simply because of the sheer amount of games (700 for DC, roughly 2000 for Wii U) the Wii U has available. Even if the Wii U has a much smaller percentage of quality games than the DC, it would still have more quality games in absolute numbers.
Now you're just creating a strawman. I never said any of this. The title of the thread is "What had the better life, the Dreamcast or Wii U". The Dreamcast isn't even the best Sega console of all time. It definately had a better life than the Wii U though.
I was exaggerating because you were going on about how "top heavy" the DC was. If it really was, it must be an exceptional console, no? But now it's not even the best SEGA console. Man, those other consoles must be beasts.
This is mostly because the port was a rush-job handled by Genki rather than Sega AM2 themselves. The Dreamcast certainly could have handled an accurate port of VF3, as both Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive 2 are noticeably better than even the Model 3 VF3 graphically.
At least it didn't end up like Sega Rally 2 (ported with Windows CE).
It's unbelievable how some are downplaying the Wii U's BC and VC in their attempts to make the Dreamcast look good. Truth is, if the Dreamcast could play all my Saturn collection with no region lock, it would have been INSANE! I would have sold my beloved Saturn instead of my DC.
The reality is the DC can't play Soukyugurentai, Dragon Force, Dragon Force II, Saturn Bomberman, Burning Rangers, X-men vs. Streetfighter, Guardian Heroes, The Legend of Oasis, Nights into Dreams, Fighting Vipers, The Last Bronx, Street Fighter Alpha II, Virtua Cop 1/2, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Sega Rally, Virtua Fighter 2, Radiant Silvergun, Thunder Force V, Gun Griffon II, All Japan Pro Wrestling Featuring Virtua, Shining Force III, Outrun, Sonic Jam and many more.
On the other hand, the Wii U could play all its predecessor's games (Mario Galaxy II, Wii Sports Resort, Xenoblade and shit loads of classics) out of the box--an inherent feature that renders the Wii pretty much useless if you buy the Wii U. I could say the same for the 3DS which could play my awesome DS library; there's no reason for me to fix my broken DS Lites.
Now, if Nintendo releases the NX without BC, the Wii U will remain close to my heart in the next 20 years, just like how Saturn is to this day.
It's unbelievable how some are downplaying the Wii U's BC and VC in their attempts to make the Dreamcast look good. Truth is, if the Dreamcast could play all my Saturn collection with no region lock, it would have been INSANE! I would have sold my beloved Saturn instead of my DC.
The truth is the DC can't play Soukyugurentai, Dragon Force, Dragon Force II, Saturn Bomberman, Burning Rangers, X-men vs. Streetfighter, Guardian Heroes, The Legend of Oasis, Nights into Dreams, Fighting Vipers, The Last Bronx, Street Fighter Alpha II, Virtua Cop 1/2, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Sega Rally, Virtua Fighter 2, Radiant Silvergun, Thunder Force V, Gun Griffon II, All Japan Pro Wrestling Featuring Virtua, Shining Force III, Outrun, Sonic Jam and many more.
On the other hand, the Wii U could play all its predecessor's games out of the box--an inherent feature that renders the Wii pretty much useless if you buy the Wii U. I could say the same for the 3DS which could play my awesome DS library; there's no reason for me to fix by broken DS Lites.
Now, if Nintendo releases the NX without BC, the Wii U will remain close to my heart in the next 20 years, just like how Saturn is to this day.
I was exaggerating because you were going on about how "top heavy" the DC was. If it really was, it must be an exceptional console, no? But now it's not even the best SEGA console. Man, those other consoles must be beasts.
It was an exceptional console...for the short period it existed. The Wii U was a mediocre console for the longer period it existed. Hence it had the better life. The fact it can even be compared to consoles that lasted twice as long is a testament to how many good games it had in a year and a half.
I'm being "binary" about it (not really, but I'm being less nuanced, sure) because you've done nothing but overstating the importance of specs.
They aren't that important. They are a factor, like everything is a factor. But not an important one, and there is plenty of (strong) evidence that you keep ignoring because it undermines your POV.
How am I overstating their importance by mentioning common-sense realities regarding them? There's a reason companies mentioned "bits" in their advertising in the '90s. There's a reason Digital Foundry exists today. Just because the jump in improvements from gen to gen has become less immediately obvious doesn't mean specs aren't important.
Good specs are a big reason why PS1 was successful. Specs pretty much DEFINED PS2's early hype when no one even knew what it looked like! Specs are why PS3 eventually got solid 1st party games that showed off its power properly. And specs are why a lot of people have chosen PS4 at a larger rate than XBO. Specs are why some people decided to go PC this gen.
Specs matter. They aren't the only factor, but they matter. If they didn't, no one would need to release more than product every decade. There would be dozens of billions poured into the tech industry by different companies. And people would still be rocking Blackberries and N-Gage.
Oh come on, lol.
First it's an anomaly.
Now it did "pretty well". (It's only the 2nd best selling home console EVER, but let's not let that little fact get in the way, shall we?)
They're only producing 800,000 Wii Us this year. Put that into perspective; XBO sells more than that in half a quarter with its biggest markets combined (if not faster); PS4 sells more than that worldwide in one month!
Wii U in 2016: Don't call it a comeback.
The Wii U has a wealth of controllers, but let's not let that little fact get in our way. Unlike the DC. But let's not let that little fact get in the way either.
Dreamcast also had a lot of different controllers, but they weren't the standardized official one packed with each system. If people want a better controller option for Wii U for certain games, they have to pay for the game and another controller on top of it.
It's an extra step in the process between them and them playing the game.
Nope, you didn't ridicule it. It did "pretty well".
You're still arguing semantics here. It did great (is that better?) in sales, but don't forget it dropped off like a rock after 2010. No other successful console just completely exited the picture like that before.
Nintendo did a piss-poor job of supporting it after 2010 and 3rd parties didn't do much better. That had an effect on Wii U's sales, even at the time.
Of course it extends to other markets. Only you said the home console market was "special". It isn't.
And the masses do NOT necessarily follow early adopters. Early adopters bought the N-Gage. Early adopters buy everything. They're dumb like that. Paying more for what oftentimes are unfinished or unbalanced tech products. I mean, I get why they do it. But please don't go portray them as "trendsetters". They're the easiest bait for vendors is what they are.
However you or I feel about early adopters personally, is besides the point. They're not unimportant, if that's what you're trying to get at. And they're immensely valuable to companies in garnering feedback on product weaknesses and strengths, and financial support.
They may not be the only "trendsetters", certainly, but they're a part of that group. There's no denying that.
Ermm... nope. Iirc there was some crazy design flaw about the antenna in one of the early iPhones. Not something most of your respected technophiles mentioned in their reviews.
You could just as easily find some reviews that probably did mention that, though. Who knows, maybe Apple told people not to mention the problem or else they'd face some kind of repercussion?
There's always multiple elements at play here.
Many of those people are enthusiasts. They're hardly critical as long as they can play with their new toys. iPhones were/are a status symbol too.
It's the fact they're enthusiasts why they are among the most critical. Look at all the early PS4 adopters complaining about PS4K/Neo right now. Some of them have no idea what they're talking about, but just as many make good, sound, rationale points worth discussing.
And it's because of that others (again, mostly enthusiasts) have been able to better their own counter-arguments and gradually we're seeing a growing level of acceptance over the idea altogether among the core, most critical segment of potential consumers. And that'll translate to making it easier to appeal to the more casual consumers in due time.
They're both shite consoles that deserved their terrible sales despite a handful of classic games, but I actually bought a WiiU, rather than just sneer derisively at it as I did the Dreamcast, so I guess I think the WiiU is better? Not exactly a win for Nintendo though mind.
It's kind of like asking which is better, a dog turd or rabbit droppings, really.
Of course every I post in here is about me... this is an opinion based topic, lol. Everyone posting which of the two they prefer is doing so because they prefer it... not because they're trying to predict the number of people around the world outside of GAF that want to play classic games on their new console.
It absolutely does matter that you provide a source, if you're going to tell me to look for "factual" information about something as subjective as quality. Your "statistics" don't demonstrate shit. To the average random person today Assassin's Creed Unity is a better game than Super Metroid. Now, I don't see it that way, but that's also because I have the benefit of context, which most that are joining us fresh for this generation don't have. The most hilarious thing though? Take Assassin's Creed Unity back to 1994 and somehow get it up and running on something, and it'd be lauded as the best game ever made, lol.
It's not "statistically almost impossible" for the DC to have had a higher number of quality releases during its lifetime, than the Wii U does today, because in the absence of any "objective source" to refer to, that becomes entirely my call. If I don't care about a game in 2016, then it's not getting counted. That rules out pretty much everything that's not part of the Wii U's natural software library, of which I own 8 games. Only two of those games I would classify as great, and they're both Bayonetta games. The others range from good to mediocre. Now this obviously isn't an objective measure of the Wii U's software library... but that's because none exists. Which is why you won't point to one.
And no... indie developers making games like Super Metroid isn't objectively anything. Every 2D fighter in existence is still being fashioned in the mould of Street Fighter 2 World Warrior... but I'm sure as hell not playing that today, and so I don't class it as a great game today despite the fact that it was the sole reason I bought a SNES in the first place back then. These games are definitely influential, but their quality is still subjective and up to the individual to determine.
So would I to be fair. But when I played Sonic Adventure then it was awesome, and when I played Sonic Lost World last year, it was meh. So this only really counts for me if we were to consider both games as of today, which isn't really the point of the thread.
How am I overstating their importance by mentioning common-sense realities regarding them? There's a reason companies mentioned "bits" in their advertising in the '90s.
That reason is called marketing. The TurboGrafX 16 was called that for marketing reasons. In reality it was a hybrid 8 and 16bit console. So the 16bit specs weren't there, but the marketing story was.
The Cell processor on the PS3 was also mostly a marketing story. In reality, its capacity remained underutilized during the entire life cycle of the console.
There's a reason Digital Foundry exists today. Just because the jump in improvements from gen to gen has become less immediately obvious doesn't mean specs aren't important.
Tech enthusiasts need to stay busy. They too are overstating the importance of specs, nitpicking on details such as anti-aliasing. The majority of people don't even know what that is. Those goons at DF are so far up their own arses sometimes. Like when a Nintendo console produces smooth 60 fps it gets slashed for whatever, but framerate drops to 20 fps on "superior" consoles are acceptable, lol.
Nope. Nope. Nope. New products are released for the image of the company. Like when Burger King introduces a "new recipe" for one of their burgers. New products are introduced because they make companies money. It's called capitalism. You may have heard of it. New products are NOT released because specs matter. Specs are mostly a means to sell new products.
Dreamcast also had a lot of different controllers, but they weren't the standardized official one packed with each system. If people want a better controller option for Wii U for certain games, they have to pay for the game and another controller on top of it.
It's an extra step in the process between them and them playing the game.
What's your point? What does the cost price have to do with anything. Another sorry attempt to downplay assets the Wii U has and the DC hadn't. Or hardly hadn't. Those Wii U controllers are out there. Plenty of them.
You're still arguing semantics here. It did great (is that better?) in sales, but don't forget it dropped off like a rock after 2010. No other successful console just completely exited the picture like that before.
Nintendo did a piss-poor job of supporting it after 2010 and 3rd parties didn't do much better. That had an effect on Wii U's sales, even at the time.
However you or I feel about early adopters personally, is besides the point. They're not unimportant, if that's what you're trying to get at. And they're immensely valuable to companies in garnering feedback on product weaknesses and strengths, and financial support.
You know, when you watch television and watch an ad for a new 'super special' soap, and you then go out and buy that soap on a whim. Do you consider yourself a soap trendsetter who is immensely valuable for the soap industry, or rather a victim of marketing?
A trendsetter is someone who's ahead of a trend, who literally sets a trend. Not someone who buys a product after it's been hyped for months by marketing guys. Which is exactly what happens with home consoles.
You could just as easily find some reviews that probably did mention that, though. Who knows, maybe Apple told people not to mention the problem or else they'd face some kind of repercussion?
It's the fact they're enthusiasts why they are among the most critical. Look at all the early PS4 adopters complaining about PS4K/Neo right now. Some of them have no idea what they're talking about, but just as many make good, sound, rationale points worth discussing.
And it's because of that others (again, mostly enthusiasts) have been able to better their own counter-arguments and gradually we're seeing a growing level of acceptance over the idea altogether among the core, most critical segment of potential consumers. And that'll translate to making it easier to appeal to the more casual consumers in due time.
What you're describing is the role of 'opinion leaders'. I'm not an early adopter, and when I buy a new tech product, the last person I would go to for advice is an early adopter. I don't think early adopters = opinion leaders tbh.
Of course every I post in here is about me... this is an opinion based topic, lol. Everyone posting which of the two they prefer is doing so because they prefer it... not because they're trying to predict the number of people around the world outside of GAF that want to play classic games on their new console.
It absolutely does matter that you provide a source, if you're going to tell me to look for "factual" information about something as subjective as quality. Your "statistics" don't demonstrate shit. To the average random person today Assassin's Creed Unity is a better game than Super Metroid. Now, I don't see it that way, but that's also because I have the benefit of context, which most that are joining us fresh for this generation don't have. The most hilarious thing though? Take Assassin's Creed Unity back to 1994 and somehow get it up and running on something, and it'd be lauded as the best game ever made, lol.
It's not "statistically almost impossible" for the DC to have had a higher number of quality releases during its lifetime, than the Wii U does today, because in the absence of any "objective source" to refer to, that becomes entirely my call. If I don't care about a game in 2016, then it's not getting counted. That rules out pretty much everything that's not part of the Wii U's natural software library, of which I own 8 games. Only two of those games I would classify as great, and they're both Bayonetta games. The others range from good to mediocre. Now this obviously isn't an objective measure of the Wii U's software library... but that's because none exists. Which is why you won't point to one.
And no... indie developers making games like Super Metroid isn't objectively anything. Every 2D fighter in existence is still being fashioned in the mould of Street Fighter 2 World Warrior... but I'm sure as hell not playing that today, and so I don't class it as a great game today despite the fact that it was the sole reason I bought a SNES in the first place back then. These games are definitely influential, but their quality is still subjective and up to the individual to determine.
It was an exceptional console...for the short period it existed. The Wii U was a mediocre console for the longer period it existed. Hence it had the better life. The fact it can even be compared to consoles that lasted twice as long is a testament to how many good games it had in a year and a half.
And since it sold so badly, the world must consist of dumbasses for not seeing how exceptional the DC really was. Fortunately you are among the "enlightened".
You can compare any console with any other. Not sure how long the N-Gage or Virtual Boy lasted, but you can also compare those with the DC. ;-)
That the DC blew other consoles out of the water at the time from a graphical point of view, really only resulted in some fanboys wetting their panties at the time.
In the real world, not the fictional DC fanboy one, the percentage of quality games on most consoles is similar. But let's be kind to the DC and assume that it has a high percentage of quality games.
New Super Mario Bros U
Sonic Lost World
Wii Party (this just came with my Wii U)
NintendoLand
Zombi U
Bayonetta / Bayonetta 2
Fast Racing NEO
I know... a lot of the usual suspects aren't there. Most of them don't appeal to me really, other than XBX and possibly Mario 3D World (I'm iffy on that one, as I bought 3D Land and didn't enjoy it much).
And since it sold so badly, the world must consist of dumbasses for not seeing how exceptional the DC really was. Fortunately you are among the "enlightened".
You can compare any console with any other. Not sure how long the N-Gage or Virtual Boy lasted, but you can also compare those with the DC. ;-)
I didn't say or imply that lol. There are a variety of reasons why a console can fail besides having no games. The Neo Geo is one of my favorite consoles, but I don't think it didn't sell well because most people aren't cultured enough to understand Art of Fighting lol.
Obviously the Dreamcast failed for different reasons than the Neo Geo but neither had to do with the quality of the games. Neither did the Wii U for that matter (which is a console I really like! FYI).
