The thread crossed the event horizon of embarrassment long ago.
The thread crossed the event horizon of embarrassment long ago.
Sure! (I'll even snap a picture if you'd like)
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).
Well that pretty much explains your position. You don't have enough games to make a fair assessment IMHO.
I did pretty much expect that to be your reply tbh, and it's cool... I can understand that being the immediate reaction. But as I said, the reason I don't have many games is because I don't actually want them. I'm not ignorant as to what they are. Of those that are commonly cited I've tried:
Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze (not really fond of any DKC game, and this wasn't any different)
Mario Kart 8 (just burnt out on the series at this point. Much preferred Sonic Transformed, which I bought on PC)
Pikmin 3 (pretty decent game, but not something I see myself actually playing through)
Splatoon (I should have listed this along with XBX and 3D World actually. May pick it up at some point... I'm just kinda full on MP shooters for now)
Super Mario Maker (NSMBU was enough 2D Mario for me for a long, long time)
Wonderful 101 (was really looking forward to this initially, but ended up despising the demo)
Zelda Wind Waker (played on GC, don't really like Zelda games)
Zelda Twilight Princess (played on Wii, turns out I still didn't like Zelda games)
I haven't tried (but have a decent approximation of)
Hyrule Warriors (dislike the entire subgenre of these games)
Super Luigi U (see Super Mario Maker)
Smash Bros 4 (enjoyed Melee a bit, was apathetic to Brawl, don't feel the need to ever play one of these again)
The problem isn't in the number of games I own. It's that being burnt out or uninterested in a few of the core Nintendo offerings the Wii U has blows a whole in the console's library. There's very little of note that I haven't properly considered. If I liked all of the above games, then I would have a respectable library... but this is what an overspecialised library with lacking variety result in when someone's taste don't perfectly align with the smaller offerings.
Buy and play all those games when they are dirt cheap (save for Splatoon because it may not be online anymore a couple of years from now).
Then let's talk.
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.
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.
It defined the hype, you said that right. Which is a marketing matter. The specs didn't define the quality of the games though.
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.
That fictional SEGA fanboy world is just fascinating.
I'm just showcasing how you're biased even in your wording. Hyperbolic language for the DC (dat giant leap in specs!!!), downplaying the rest.
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.
The SEGA force is strong in this one. What year is this? 1995?
I said different tech markets are comparable. You first disagreed, then agreed.
They play their role. (More hyperbolic language here btw with "immensely valuable).
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.
So you agree that those reviewers aren't necessarily reliable when it comes to their assesment of products and/or their specs?
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.
Well, this is serious business. Always come prepared.Holy shit this thread just keeps on giving.
Never experienced the war between Sega and Nintendo myself, but I can imagine how brutal it was back in the days. People really get toe to toe on this.
I would take Lost World and Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed over both Sonic Adventures, and that shitty Mario Party wannabe any day.
Don't forget Rent-A-Hero, Segagaga and Lack of Love!I love both systems, as both have some of my favorite games of all time on them. However, I think I have to give the edge to the Dreamcast just because of the amount of weird and quirky titles on it; stuff like Space Channel 5 and Seaman.
Holy shit this thread just keeps on giving.
Never experienced the war between Sega and Nintendo myself, but I can imagine how brutal it was back in the days. People really get toe to toe on this.
Marketing or not, my point still holds true. Specs mattered, and still do. There would have been zero reason for those marketing campaigns if they didn't play a factor into people's purchases.
I don't recall seeing the Cell hyped up in PS3 commercials. You might be confusing that with the Emotion Engine, which literally wears its marketing in its name.
Besides, I wouldn't say Cell was completely underutilized; games like The Last Of Us pushed it extremely far and I'd argue they tapped it out in terms of gaming capabilities. Of course, it was also used as cluster beds for supercomputers, so who really knows on that one :/
Lol I think there are worst people in the world who would fit that label than the fine lads and ladies over at Digital Foundry. They aren't perfect, but they aren't horrible either. Otherwise they'd of become irrelevant long ago.
But anyway, 60 fps isn't some magical setting exclusive to Nintendo consoles; that's got nothing to do with DF (and other places) tearing apart the Wii U when it released. 60 fps is completely on the aims of the development team; I'm sure 1080p60 was possible in 1996 as well, but why would any game have realistically been made in that way when there were very few monitors or televisions capable of 1080i, let alone 1080p, and costed close to $10,000?
We're talking about specs in regards of the console's theoretical (and demonstrable) capabilities, and how much those capabilities influence buying habits, not how they do or don't translate to software quality.
You literally contradict yourself here; in your own words, specs matter!
Well I'm sure that Luigi hat doesn't hint at any sort of bias on your part, now does it? Nah, it couldn't...
It's not bias; it's truth. Dreamcast was a full generational leap ahead of PS1, Saturn, and N64. The numbers support that. Wii U was barely an improvement on PS3 and 360, and its CPU wasn't even as good as the (at that time) seven-year-old Cell processor. The numbers are out there which support it.
Don't take it out on me because Nintendo reduced the Wii U specs at the last minute.
I didn't deny those controllers are out there. They obviously are. I have the Smash bros. controller right now and use it regularly (albeit on my Wii). Fantastic controller (well, aside from the d-pad). But for Smash players on Wii U, it was an extra $40 on top of their $60 game, effectively making the game $100 for the optimal version.
Console manufacturers and accessory makers have always been guilty of this; I'm simply noting how the Wii U kind of exasperates attention to the issue given its non-standard pack-in controller. You know, the one they couldn't even sell separately or have more than one usable on a single system, because it'd cost too much and put too much of a strain on the console's streaming tech.
2016, and if by SEGA force you mean sound logic, then, well,...sure. I guess?
I'm not trying to turn this into a fanboy battle and I actually quite like Nintendo in many ways, but if I have to play the sly playground game of jabs and barbs, I'll happily jump in. If just for a little bit
When we defined the parameters in more detail, my take on the discussion evolved to fit those parameters. Adapting to the flow of conversation, as some call it.
Lol c'mon now, of course I don't. That'd be ridiculous xD. But a home console isn't a bar of soap now is it? Neither's a smartphone for that matter. They're two completely different products with different types of uses and therefore aren't comparable.
No one really gets envious of another b/c they have a slightly better bar of soap, but that "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality is always in swing when it comes to consumer electronics. You know this.
That's good for you. Regardless, it's your right to exercise whose word you invest into when it comes to the products you're spending money on. But to completely discredit early adopters is pretty foolish.
These are usually people who put in the research to determine if that item is worth their few hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars. They want the best for their money, so of course they're going to be somewhat well-informed.
Well, outside of Splatoon and maybe Pikmin 3, I wouldn't be playing the others on that list even if you simply gave them to me for free right now. Time is the other resource I'm not prepared to give them. They've had their auditions, and I have far more stuff in general that I'm interested in playing than I have the time for. I'm not going to favor these games simply to try and force some more worth out of the console. I didn't even finish NSMBU because I got bored of it part way through and moved onto other stuff.
If I had unlimited time, and unlimited funds I would give every game a complete playthrough. I don't though, and so don't think "buy all the stuff you're not interested in" is a valid requirement for having an opinion, at any price. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to buy every Dreamcast game I could rattle off (even those they've actually already tried), and then come back to talk to me.
This is especially the case in regards to this topic where we're discussing the Wii U's "life", which is likely to be over before most of these games qualify as "dirt cheap".
I also don't have unlimited time in my hands and that's precisely the reason why I love pick-up-and-play games with high replay value and fun factor per second. This happens to be the area where the Wii U excels. Nintendo games in HD also are very pleasing to my eyes and ears. Games like Pikmin 3, Splatoon, Captain Toad, Mario Kart 8 and in some levels Star Fox Zero are magical. I don't recall feeling the same magic when I owned ALMOST ALL games on the Dreamcast back in its life. There were no Nights into Dreams, no Panzer Dragoons and no Dragonforces which Sega was known for during its creative best. The closest the DC had were Shenmue, Phantasy Star Online, Crazy Taxi and Samba De Amigo (which by the way was playable on the Wii U).
You can't form a solid opinion unless you actually tried something out in its totality. When you compare two movies, you can't just watched one movie and then compare it to a trailer of the other movie. It doesn't work that way. I personally have owned almost all Dreamcast games during its lifetime and own almost all 1st party games on the Wii U right now and I can say that I had more magical experience with my Wii U more than I had with the Dreamcast.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Holy shit this thread just keeps on giving.
Never experienced the war between Sega and Nintendo myself, but I can imagine how brutal it was back in the days. People really get toe to toe on this.
Its no use trying to understand it.
Seriously, you have no idea. Just give up, it was a time to remember. At one time, Nintendo having some of Sega's franchises today would have seemed inconceivable in the same way Mario jumping to Sony consoles or Xbox is
Also Namco releasing their titles on a Nintendo console would have been just as inconceivable. They werent on good terms either
Whatever you say. First you couldn't stress enough how specs are super crucial to make the best games ever (because shaders, anti-aliasing, fps, ... blah blah), then they were "a factor", now you're practically ok with them being there for the purposes of marketing, lol.
Fact of the matter is that they really are not that important, and that you've been grossly overstating their importance. When a product is developed marketing teams of console vendors do research on what is important to the market. For early adopters, it's always specs and feature creeping. This is a small group, but one that is the easiest to convince to buy your product (and pay dearly for it) as long as there are enough buzz words involved. But then you still need to make sure, if you want your product to be viable, that other target groups are served. Those other target groups generally don't care about specs at all. But they are the ones you need to get to, because they will ensure the install base of your product is ultimately large enough. The final group ("laggards") is purely price motivated. For them you need to make sure that you can drop the price down the line. For the most important groups (the majority groups in between early adopters and laggards) other factors come into play. Not so much specs though.
I guess you have a selective memory. The Cell processor was utilized in marketing to help medical research even. It was literally a life saver!
So you can name one game that potentially somewhat used most of its potential. Awesome.
LOL. Yep, phantasy world. Seriously, dude, the 60fps was just an example, because in last gen DF was effectively tearing the Wii apart for graphical details when it ran most of its first party games in fluent 60fps while the "superior" PS3 and XBOX360 struggled to get 30fps pushed out. But of course, that was "for cinematic reasons", lol. My point is: DF focuses on stuff that goes over the heads of the large majority of people. Probably a good number of people that do read/watch DF don't fully understand what they're getting at.
Let me remind you how, before, we were talking about how specs were crucial to make games according to you. But when that fell flat, you jumped on the buying habits wagon to try and justify your POV, lol. It's a dead end too, man.
No, you need to learn to read. It's getting pathetic. Scroll up, and read about how marketing works. Specs are not that important.
You're late. Your fanboy friend Synth had noticed that a couple of pages up. The hat is there since I bought Luigi's Mansion 2 on 3DS. It was a thing back then on GAF, a thing I thought was cute. I've been too lazy to take it off. You're an idiot for bringing it up again.
How?That your wording is hyperbolic when it comes to the DC is indeed the truth.
If only specs mattered, right. The DC performed equally poorly as the Wii U. Wake up, man! It was a failure. Even though it was the awesomest thing to ever set foot on Earth to you.
But (before you start diverting again) you'll agree that the Wii U has plenty of controllers, and the DC didn't really.
Yet all you bring to the table is fanboy talk, dude. The specs, the generation leap, the top heavy library of the DC... lol. None of that prevented the miserable commercial failure of the DC. Because it doesn't matter to the market. If it really did, DCs would've flown of the shelves like hotcakes.
The Wii U, commercially a failure too, had none of that alleged DC awesomeness. Because specs don't matter, and Nintendo actually understands that. They've proven, with the Wii, the DS and the 3DS, that it's not necessary to take part in a tech race to win a generation.
But if you go and compare both console's lives, the Wii U does have more quality content readily available.
Yet in the market of both products marketeers are at play. In both markets they define early adopters, early and late majority and laggards. In both markets they look for buzz words to sell early adopters on. The same mechanisms are applied to both markets. Yet they're not comparable?
You know, the word "early adopter" is a marketing term. You love to think of them as trendsetters, but they're ultimately nothing more than a target group. A group that marketeers have defined as people being happy to overpay for new stuff. Be it a new soap or a new home console.
I didn't completely discredit them. I said they're the easiest bait for marketeers, and that I personally wouldn't consult an early adopter when it comes to new tech.
But to you they're "immensely valuable", right? So I guess anything that doesn't fit your POV is "completely discrediting". More hyperbole. And yes, more semantics, because you keep blowing up stuff.
You can drop the "they". All involved know that you're talking about you here. ;-)
I'm not saying they don't put in research. And I'm not saying they don't get their money's worth, because early adopters do get satisfaction out of features they don't really need. Their consoles need at least 4 USB3 ports, and 3 HDMI ports. Not that they'll ever use those simultaneously. But it matters that they CAN use them simultaneously if they would want to.
That's why you typically get feature creeping in tech products. Vendors are cramming in stuff that a regular user never uses in the product's lifetime. For an early adopter though, it's part of the appeal of owning a product.
You could even argue that the Wii backwards compatibility, the eShop and the VC is feature creeping. That they are features that ultimately aren't used a lot, and that they're mainly there to sway early adopters into buying the new console. I may even in part agree to that.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Wii U does offer them, and the DC never did. And as a result you do have access to an amazing amount of games, and a large amount of quality games. A library that easily outweighs what the DC had to offer.
So if you're going to compare both consoles on what is ultimately the most important part of a console (hint: the games), then the Wii U simply has more quality.
Your problem is you aren't arguing in favor of those platformers to try and convince the other person to check the system out while respecting the fact they still prefer those 2D fighters. Your problem is, you belittle their preference and push your preference without any substance behind it, somehow thinking they'll "see the error of their ways" and come around to your POV. The brute force approach, as it were.
Except it's not working. Like, at all.
I've enjoyed the Wii U but no way will it be remembered in the way that the Dreamcast was.
It's not working for the likes of you and Synth, because your approach is to make this whole comparison between DC and Wii U a 'personal opinion' thing.
Let me start by saying that I don't mind personal opinions. This is a forum after all, and everyone's free to express theirs. You have every right too. A personal opinion thing however isn't really instrumental to a proper discussion on a comparison though. It'll easily end up in "DC is da best. No, Wii U rulez." type of conversation. Which is exactly what we saw happening here: Synth likes DC better because he played the console more back in the days. You dislike the Wii U more because its specs don't blow your mind.
To avoid that kind of fruitless debating, I tried to objectify things by setting personal preferences aside as much as possible.
When one objectifies things, one leaves out as much as possible everything that is mostly defined by personal choice. Video game genres is one of those. So whether the DC has more 2D fighters or not is again an element of personal preference to like the DC over the Wii U or not. My assumption was, as I explained before, that a percentage of the total library of each console is quality software, and they you have similar amounts of quality on each console. I also believe that the average person likes different kinds of genres. So pinning a console down to the number of games in a specific genre is again not an objective approach.
You have continuously failed to understand all of that, clinging onto false arguments about the relative importance of specs and whatnot. Denying any attempt at an objective debate by bringing up irrelevant and unfounded wild thoughts. The stuff in that last post of yours is just mind blowing, full of more contradictions, frankly highly uninformed too and sometimes completely delusional. You have no idea how product development and marketing works. You seem to have little understanding of statistics and the market and economy in general. And the worst part is that you actually seem to believe all of what you're posting too, to a fault. There's no point debating with "believers". I'm not going to try denying the existence of God here. I prefer to keep it rational and facts based.
I'm not saying that one can completely rule out personal preferences. That's obviously not possible. But when you try to look as abstractly at things as I attempted here, a lot of "noise" is at least left out of the equation. But I don't think you were ever interested in that.
You are talking about a medium that itself builds a personal, emotional connection with the consumers who engage in it, and yet somehow you are saying that people should lock that away and not let it factor into their judgement whatsoever?
You are talking about a medium that itself builds a personal, emotional connection with the consumers who engage in it, and yet somehow you are saying that people should lock that away and not let it factor into their judgement whatsoever?
The Wii U has roughly 2000 games available if you count Wii U, Wii, indie games and VC. Wii alone is 1260 games fyi.
Gamers are not scientists.
I don't care about people blowing consoles up in Youtube videos. This isn't about them. It's about the reasons they originally purchased those systems, and about the reasons people who don't buy consoles to blow them up in Youtube videos, buy them. And they make those purchases partially off of what console appeals to their tastes more. But go ahead, keep pretending as though they're scientists.
Once again, you take someone else's point and flip it to its extremes, and drop all context of subtlety along the way. Every single thing you've mentioned isn't lost on me; I've just been smart enough to keep my POV within context and see the holes in your logic.
That's it. That's honestly all I pretty much feel like saying on this subject. I'm more than satisfied with my rebuttals and counter-arguments against your points. Hopefully you'll become a better debater in future endeavors as a result of this.
Really..REALLY?
I bought a Dreamcast for a few titles.. the big ones being Phantasy Star Online, Dead Or Alive 2, Soul Calibur, Sonic Adventure, Grandia 2, Skies of Arcadia, Space Channel 5, Jet Grind Radio, and that turned out to be pretty much it.
The titles I bought the Wii U for a fairly different from that: Pikmin 3, Super Mario 3D World, Super Mario Maker, Bayonetta 2, Splatoon, The Legend of Zelda, Mario Kart 8, The Wonderful 101, and a ton of digital only third party titles.
To be honest, I feel like the Wii U has a stronger line up in the end because everything good on the Dreamcast had been pillaged and placed on other consoles over and over again. It's almost shocking to me that we haven't gotten a port of Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 on the Wii U. I have no idea why Sega hasn't announced new JGR or SC5 for the Wii U and other modern consoles.
Nostalgia me would say Dreamcast, but then I open up my 3DS with the Dreamcast theme and play a bit of Dead Or Alive Dimensions and then I don't miss the Dreamcast for a little while.
So, I'm going to say the Wii U.
I explained why your emotional reasoning is completely unfit to make an objective approach to this whole matter. That has nothing to do with people being scientists or not. It's about the method one employs to make a rational assumption about something in general. Gamers, like any other person, should be able to make an objectified, science based approach of things in their lives. Including their consoles. Like a scientist would do. You don't have to be a scientist to be able to be somewhat rational about something.
I didn't pretend they are scientists. You have awful reading skills.
Honestly, I don't think you picked anything up from anything I said. Only some imaginary holes, because you have been convinced from the beginning that I must be wrong, since "the Dreamcast is the clear winner here".
There is no point in taking your personal opinion seriously. Like I said, I don't care for an emotional approach of the matter. It leads to nothing else but long overdue console wars. I've tried to get you away from there and keep this rational, but you keep acting like a fanboy.
If only they were real counter-arguments, lol. There is not a single point of my arguments that you actually proved wrong with anything other than your gut feeling, outright denial of facts and hearsay. No actual data, no solid evidence.
All I've seen is you reassuring yourself that you actually have a point, every time one of your wild assumptions got countered. No evidence, just loosely connected, unfounded wild thoughts. Cyclical reasoning too, like all the time. You: "Specs are important, because why are there new consoles, right? Since there are new consoles, specs must be important. Otherwise there wouldn't be new consoles. See, I've proven you wrong." Apparently that kind of laughable stuff is your idea of countering me, lol.
Your objective approach has been to leverage the software originally released for other systems as a way to bolster the perception of the Wii U's software library to people who otherwise are looking for reasons unique to the system itself as justification for buying into the platform and its ecosystem. Several posters have already called you out for this, and rightfully so. There was a single person in 2012 going "Oh wow! Wii U can play my Wii games! I'm totes buying it because of that!". There isn't a single person doing that now.
No one is exclusively buying the system because it has ports of Freedom Planet or Shovel Knight. However, those could be additional (but less significant) factors in them buying the system in addition to those games. There's no rocket science to this.
No one made backwards compatibility the main reason for purchasing a PS2 or PS3. No one is using that as the main reason to buy an XBO. No one is using that as the main reason to buy a Wii U. Yet a significant portion of your argument has been to fall on that as your pillar, and it's actually quite pathetic.
Nah, there's just very little in there worth reading is all.
I've never once claimed Dreamcast is the "clear winner"; that's something you've inferred due to your bias, nothing more. In fact if you bothered to pay attention to what I said, you'd know Dreamcast is not the clear winner because there are people whose tastes wouldn't likely be fully satisfied by the system's library. Whether Wii U or Dreamcast, the discussion goes into problem areas when people begin saying "and that's why 'x_system' sucks and is a horrible console."
Stating one's preference doesn't have to come at the expense of denigrating the other options. In fact, chances are likely they could get those preferring the other options to prefer their choice as well by avoiding that type of nonsense, and maybe said person could even re-evaluate their preference and learn to appreciate the other for its strengths. However that's something you have obviously not done, and obviously have zero interest in doing, and at this point we're honestly just running around in circles and for what?
I'm not the one who's continuously made sarcastic remarks about certain people and their possible system preference in this thread. You've done that several times. And continue to do so, in fact.
Yet I'm the fanboy. Sure.
We're discussing a largely subjective topic and you want me to play analytics? Truly, you've lost your mind. I've already given my subjective opinions on the subject. I've framed my side of things sufficiently. I've even implicitly said that Wii U, if just going by something like review ratings, has a larger amount of 'good' games by virtue of having more games and having been commercially available long enough to have more games.
But that isn't good enough for you is it? No, you want me to subjectively relinquish my opinion on Dreamcast having a software library that's more appealing to my gaming sensibilities. You want me to subjectively relinquish the idea that it's had more of a technological impact on the industry for its relative era than the Wii U has had for its era (and on that note, I have provided objective evidence, could provide more, and several other posters have easily proven this particular subjective opinion to also be factually true). And there's no chance of that happening with what you've presented throughout this thread.
So now the contextual purpose of specs has been morphed back into this absolute mechanism of machine power.
See what you did there? Of course it's easy for you to repackage a sarcastic take on my words when you do that. Yet I've already mentioned how even the presence, or idea of specs, is important in regards to marketing, buzz, and consumer awareness, whether those specs actually provide what they say they provide or not.
You are talking about a medium that itself builds a personal, emotional connection with the consumers who engage in it, and yet somehow you are saying that people should lock that away and not let it factor into their judgement whatsoever? I'm not necessarily surprised you'd think that, since it fits right in line with this binary/robotic rhetoric of yours.
At this point we're just going around in circles, and I don't have a vested interest in continuing this discussion. You say Wii U had the better run. I say Dreamcast did. I've laid out objective reasons why I believe it did. You....did stuff. Some of it questionable, to attempt proving the same regards Wii U.
I've enjoyed the Wii U but no way will it be remembered in the way that the Dreamcast was.
bullshit
If I were keeping tally on how many times you've resorted to ad hominems, sarcastic witty retorts, goalpost shifting and name-calling on basis of losing the argument, I'd probably be a millionaire by now.
That is simply how terribly you've handled your stance on this. Yes, I can acknowledge people at large use a mixture of subjective and objective points when making a decision, and at the same time point to objective facts to prove adjacent points. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Where are your facts to support your claim that Wii U's had a bigger impact on gaming today than Dreamcast had during its era?
You have done nothing in this regard, except claim that it has a higher ratio of objectively (read: good Metacritic scores) games, but are yourself only going off assumptions due to the presence of the indie market on the system and it being on store shelves longer (never mind your idiotic "it can play Wii games!" argument); you've never once actually brought any of that supposed proof up, merely going off your own assumptions. In that regard you are no better than myself or anyone else in this thread, so stop pretending otherwise.
Also Namco releasing their titles on a Nintendo console would have been just as inconceivable. They werent on good terms either
Which is really interesting considering in the GCN era they were super in bed with eachother so much so that namco was almost taken over by nintendoMan, Namco really hated Nintendo during the '90s, when you think about it. Jumped bed to the Genesis a bit, but completely cut out Nintendo once the PS1 rolled around. Aside from that Pac-Man port I believe, which I think was just licensed out to another dev. Nintendo themselves had to do the Ridge Racer port.
Thankfully things improved with Gamecube, but I imagine the behind-the-doors talks between the two was pretty fiendish to get the terms worked out.
Hopefully the relationship between the two continues to improve, though. Especially if it means a new Klonoa at some point
I never framed my stance on specs in this personalized way. Ever. I was just stating observations and facts. Never directly said they're needed to make the best games ever, either. However, better specs enable a game a better likelihood of achieving its design ambitions, especially w/ AAA games.
And no, I'm not "okay" with them being there for marketing. I'm just not afraid to admit the reality that they're used in marketing...unlike yourself.
Here's the thing: a lot of those "most important groups" require sufficient specs to provide. Let's take the iPhone for example (again). What features are there that you'd consider appealing to the early adopters? Now, what features are there you'd consider appealing the (in your words) most important group? I'm certain that you could figure out how there is some intersecting of interests among the two groups. Moreover, those features appealing to the "most important group" still require the presence of power and hardware that appeals to the early adopters.
Or, let's try a more immediate example: XBO's HDMI-In. Now it's obvious that was a feature meant to appeal to non-gamers (or the non-gaming sensibilities of core gamers). However, without that 8GB of RAM, it would have been very difficult (if not impossible) to include. That 8GB was more or less placed into the system for the sake of providing enough RAM for games this generation. If games didn't require that much RAM, the chances of the system going with that amount would have been significantly lower, as it's possible MS would have implemented ways outside of RAM to bring those media features to the system. However, since it WAS necessary, the two interests intersected, and they went w/ 8GB of RAM to kill two birds with one stone.
Okay, I'll kinda give you that one, but I don't think Sony themselves went around saying that.
A lot of games utilized that potential. TLOU, UC3, Last Puppeteer, GTA5, MGS5. And the list goes on...
People notice prettier visuals much easier than they notice 60 vs 30 fps. DF knew that. Sony knew that. MS knew that. Nintendo? Not so much.
Granted, I'm just speaking purely on technical merits. Wii had some gorgeous games that gen like the Galaxy games, NMH 1 and 2, Madworld etc. But those were very heavily due to art style rather than IQ or technical capabilities.
Again, I never actually said that. I merely said they mattered. You're the one who interpreted it that way and have seemingly crammed those words into my mouth, somehow. You were the first one to mention buying habits; I merely adapted my basic point into that context.
So in other words, this one's pretty much all on you.
Yet you've continued to contradict yourself, or have exposed the fallacy in your POV. Read above
I was too busy seeing Synth correct you on other points to notice. My bad.
How?
I like the Dreamcast, but it's actually not my favorite console. Gasp, I know! I'm just stating my opinion on why I feel it's a better system than Wii U, but I'm not letting that preclude me from learning new things about the Wii U which elevate it in my eye, either. And my opinions on this note could change at some point in the future, who knows.
That said, a lot of your points of discussion aren't going to be the reason to convince me, not as they are right now.
Just because I didn't mention the DC controllers doesn't mean I'm saying it didn't have plenty of them.
Again, you're being binary and very absolute, not considering subtleties or overlap. That weakens your position over time in a debate.
Call it fanboy talk if you want, if that's how you have to cope. And I never said anything about this helping (or hurting, ftm) the DC. I already mentioned earlier in the thread to another poster why DC failed in terms of sales.
Besides, what does you even mentioning this accomplish? I already know this stuff! Everyone does!!
Of course specs still mattered, they just chose different specs not focused on raw power. The Wii, DS, and 3DS had other advantages aside from raw power to make their lack of raw power a relative moot point, and the features they provided did not require that type of power capability.
Oh, and they had good (and - pay attention there - consistent flow of good) games.
How? And more importantly, how in a way that doesn't rely on the Wii and Gamecube library as a crutch, as you've been doing throughout the thread?
It doesn't matter either way, as it's your subjective opinion. But it would be neat to see you justify it in a better way.
Those commonalities are broad. So of course by that metric they're comparable. There are still tons of small details that differ though, which you take into account to get the full picture.
Okay. Good point. Doesn't mean their word is worthless though, and associating negative connotations to them devalues their word, you know :/
Like I said, you're devaluing their worth by associating negative descriptions to them.
I'm not a demolitions expert.
Actually, no I'm not.
Yeah, but eventually that benefits the "most important group", so it's kind of a win-win.
How do you know this?
We finally agree on something of substance.
Yes, because it was either technically infeasible then (broadband internet wasn't exactly a widespread thing back then, so that meant long loading times, especially for CD-based games. And did I already mention the Saturn was a monster of a machine inside w/ that motherboard?) or would have resulted in a $400+ Dreamcast....
.....yeah....
As for the rest, you're still arguing subjectivity as objectivity. Yes, Wii U offers more games than Dreamcast, by virtue of being officially supported longer. It's even possible to say it offers more good games than Dreamcast by virtue of having more commercial games overall. But to say that it offers more games of value brings in the problem of what value means to the end user. You could have someone who really enjoys that one handful of Dreamcast games and couldn't give less of a shit about a quarter of those good Wii U games. And vice-versa.
But you love to try and argue your favoring on this as a fact to back up your opinion, which is why we're having his discussion right now.
Again, this comes down to the person. For someone who doesn't prefer sidescrolling platformers, a large chunk of the Wii U's library suddenly doesn't mean a damn thing. For someone who doesn't prefer 2D fighting games, suddenly a large chunk of the Dreamcast library doesn't mean a damn thing. So let's just use sidescrolling platformers as a supplement for Wii U here, and 2D fighters as Dreamcast's supplement.
Your problem is you aren't arguing in favor of those platformers to try and convince the other person to check the system out while respecting the fact they still prefer those 2D fighters. Your problem is, you belittle their preference and push your preference without any substance behind it, somehow thinking they'll "see the error of their ways" and come around to your POV. The brute force approach, as it were.
Except it's not working. Like, at all.