The thread crossed the event horizon of embarrassment long ago.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
With Wii U all but dead now: What had the better life, The Dreamcast or Wii U?
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
Theognosis
Member
Well that pretty much explains your position. You don't have enough games to make a fair assessment IMHO.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
I doubt the Wii U will be remembered like the Dreamcast.
schaft0620
Member
Dreamcast all the way, not even close.
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.
Theognosis
Member
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.
The Orz
Member
Going by the thread title alone, I'd say the Dreamcast had the better life, even if it was the harbinger of death for the arcades. With few exceptions, we rarely received perfect/near-perfect/beyond perfect arcade ports at home. I know this is pretty irrelevant now, but back in the mid- to late-90s this was absolutely huge.
Of course, a large library of fun, original, and experimental titles was also nice. I guess it's difficult to remember because so much of the Dreamcast library eventually ended up on other consoles (for better or worse).
That's not to belittle the Wii U or its great library. It was just a different time, which actually makes it rather difficult to compare the two outside of their short lifespans.
*The main exceptions that come to mind are the Neo-Geo (obviously limited to Neo-Geo games) and a terrific handful of Saturn imports. Bless that RAM cart expansion.
Of course, a large library of fun, original, and experimental titles was also nice. I guess it's difficult to remember because so much of the Dreamcast library eventually ended up on other consoles (for better or worse).
That's not to belittle the Wii U or its great library. It was just a different time, which actually makes it rather difficult to compare the two outside of their short lifespans.
*The main exceptions that come to mind are the Neo-Geo (obviously limited to Neo-Geo games) and a terrific handful of Saturn imports. Bless that RAM cart expansion.
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.
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".
Pretty much a tie in my book. Even though the WiiU obviously had the better "life", it wasn't more loved than the Dreamcast. Two great consoles.
I think the WiiU had more superb games, but the Dreamcast had more (and diverse) great games. A couple really good racers, RPG's, shooters, experimental games, puzzlers, sports games, action games... But nothing quite as magical as Pikmin 3, or baffling as Bayonetta 2. Still an impressive list for DC (Rez, Ikaruga, Metropolis SR, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue...).
Edit: if you take their actual lifespan into account, i'd actually give the nod to Dreamcast.
I think the WiiU had more superb games, but the Dreamcast had more (and diverse) great games. A couple really good racers, RPG's, shooters, experimental games, puzzlers, sports games, action games... But nothing quite as magical as Pikmin 3, or baffling as Bayonetta 2. Still an impressive list for DC (Rez, Ikaruga, Metropolis SR, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue...).
Edit: if you take their actual lifespan into account, i'd actually give the nod to Dreamcast.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
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.
Yay, more semantics.
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.
Those specific ones? Yeah, maybe. But they don't represent every reviewer out there, either.
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, this is serious business. Always come prepared.
This is kind of off-topic but it would be neat to see a sequel to All Stars Racing Transformed. Maybe it'll be on NX? We'll have to wait forever to find out with the way things are going over there.
Don't forget Rent-A-Hero, Segagaga and Lack of Love!
petran79
Banned
Not as brutal as the war between computer owners.
Because lets face it. Kids did not bother with specs. Teens did not bother with consoles ,since they had their computers and Sega arcades.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Dreamcast wins mainly for it's variety - Wii U's library was restricted to basically what genre Nintendo was able to produce at the moment.
Traditional fighters, tradional sports titles, traditional FPS or traditional RPG's... One a piece or none at all.
Nintendo can't provide EVERYTHING so it's library just feels much weaker than DC's (although eventually DC's library suffered the same with third parties leaving it).
Traditional fighters, tradional sports titles, traditional FPS or traditional RPG's... One a piece or none at all.
Nintendo can't provide EVERYTHING so it's library just feels much weaker than DC's (although eventually DC's library suffered the same with third parties leaving it).
foobarry81
Member
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.
Oh, and suddenly you do recall Cell marketing...
They're not irrelevant, because there's a niche audience for them, the likes of you. But mostly PC gamers. Because let's face it. Consoles are a poor man's device when it really comes to specs.
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.
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.
You may have missed this: I don't care about specs. So why would I take it out on you that Nintendo supposedly reduced specs?
But (before you start diverting again) you'll agree that the Wii U has plenty of controllers, and the DC didn't really.
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
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.
Some would call it a tactical retreat because your arguments are going nowhere.
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.
But if your mom's skin looks good because of a certain soap, your neighbour might get envious of that smooth skin and may want to know your mom's secret, and want to get some for herself.
Similar patterns, man.
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.
Theognosis
Member
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.
Agree to disagree is probably the best course of action yea... because honestly, I'm not ever going to agree with the idea that I can't form an opinion on a console I own, unless I purchase a bunch of shit I don't want for it... that's just silly. If I'd simply been unexposed to the games the Wii U offered, then you may have a point there... but simply choosing not to slog through a bunch of games that don't grab me is just illogical. I drop games when they fail to hold my attention. Sometimes this is after I've bought them (NSMBU) and sometimes I don't even need to buy them for that to happen. You don't actually have any idea how long I've tried any of the games I listed.. only that I chose not to purchase a copy for myself.
In the case of something like Mario Kart 8, I have played the game for over ten hours with friends... I know damn well what it entails. I've played the majority of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess in the past before dropping both. Even with games that I've played for less time, they are very much known quantities, because at their core they're essewntially the same as other games I've played a ton of in the past. I'm not going to be surprised by Donkey Kong Country TF, Super Mario Maker, Smash Bros, Super Luigi U etc... because I've played countless hours of the games they iterate on. They are known quantities... just like how Nintendo fans can have confidence that they will like them based on all the previous iterations. I know I'm not going to like the next Call of Duty as well... because it would have to jettison everything that makes it what it is to grab me. If I try it for 2 hours and confirm to myself "yup, this is CoD again", then I'm not unqualified to form an opinion on it... I've played numerous of them to build a reference for the series.
I typically gravitate to pick-up-and-play games also. Quite clearly this doesn't result in us gravitating to the same games however. I essentially grew up in the arcades, and they largely defined my gaming tastes. As I said earlier in the thread, I was playing VO:OT online on the 360 a while back, over 15 years after its release. I played Quake III Arena for literally thousands of hours, eventually moving to the PC version where I played it up to the release of Quake 4. I played hundreds of hours of Phantasy Star Online. Hundreds of hours of Virtua Fighter 3, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive 2, Powerstone 2, etc. Games that are magical to you aren't magical to everyone, and the same goes for the Dreamcast games that I'd describe the same way. Sega at their creative best means a different time period for different people. For many it's Genesis era Sega, for others it's Saturn era Sega, and for others its Dreamcast era Sega. I find it difficult to select one of these eras as definitely better than any others, as games from all of them would make up a large percentage of my favourite games ever.
I'm currently around 40 hours deep in Forza Motorsport 6 (after 151 hours of FM5). If someone had an Xbox One and didn't purchase FM6 (after playing the demo, or borrowing my copy) because they played FM1 thru 4 and either didn't like them, or are simply done with the series, I'd find it silly to say "nah, you can't judge the XB1's lineup unless you buy and complete FM6 also"... they know well enough what they'd be getting, and that's precisely why they haven't bought it. This applies to pretty much everything on Wii U, because it's just another Nintendo console with familiar Nintendo experiences. And even if I did like and own every last one of the games I listed... it'd still be less than a quarter of what I got from the Dreamcast back in the day.
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
petran79
Banned
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
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Man, 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.
foobarry81
Member
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. 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.
Maybe, but I think it will be better remembered than many think. The Wii U feels as unappreciated today as the Dreamcast felt when the PS2 came around. They are hard to compare, because they catered to different groups, but I am happy that I was there for both. It will be interesting to see what people think of it in 10 years.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
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.
The truth is, it's simply not possible. The reason why is because people partially base their choices or preferences on what appeals to them; that doesn't have to (and rarely ever) excuse objective facts from their decision. However, just like with the way I've been mentioning the role of specs (again, just saying they matter/factor into things; you're the one who wanted to specify in which ways), when people factor these choices into their decisions, it isn't binary. How this factor or that factor weighs into their decision is hopefully in a balanced way, but in your world you'd prefer one of those factors to simply not even exist, and that's being unrealistic.
This is why I said that regardless of if the Wii U has more good games (by virtue of being commercially supported longer), that such may not matter to certain people. If all of those good games (or most of them) are in a genre or genres that person does not normally prefer, then it will not convince them to buy into that platform. It's really that simple.
However, that doesn't mean they can't be convinced into giving that platform a try, and this is where your problem comes in, because you have not done a good job in appealing to their sensibilities, acknowledging those preferences while framing your POV in a way that gets them to consider something outside of their preferred space. Rather than looking for commonalities between the games they prefer and the games you prefer, and building that into your argument, you deface what they prefer and push what's to your tastes absolutely. Sure, you may win by attrition that way, but you fail at the greater end goal, which is to get people to try out things you enjoy (or in this case, see more value in the platform you yourself happen to prefer).
Another way to look at it is this: there are people (yes, real people) out there who may happen to prefer the library of, say, the OG Xbox, or Gamecube, over that of the PS2's. 9/10 the reason why would be because they prefer certain games in particular genres on those machines that the PS2 either doesn't have (highly unlikely, but in the case of exclusives? Sure), or doesn't have equivalents of the style/quality they like on their preferred platform. Are they suddenly wrong in their choice because the PS2, by virtue of being the most supported platform that gen, happens to have a higher amount of good games?
If people only bought consoles by the amount of good games as judged by technical scores they had, then in each generation only one console would have sold anything. There'd be no other reason to buy any of the others. That also means, by your own logic, there'd be no Wii U's sold because I'm pretty much sure the PS4 has a larger amount of good games (again, by those technical score merits/purely objective scores) than Wii U.
Doesn't feel so good when your logic can work against you does it?
Another thing: I never proclaimed to be a marketing or sales wizard. I don't care to know every little detail into those professions. However, that doesn't mean I'm a dolt who can't logically figure out how certain things proceed. Your fumbling, sloppy reductions on the role of specs in that area did more to disprove your point than mine, as if specs truly didn't matter (and again, I must stress, as a factor. Not even accounting for the weight of that factor against others), then in the history of the industry up to this day, there'd never be a single mention of specs in any form, from any company. Ever.
How specs influence game design, or how much they influence the design, or to what degree they influence the mass market's buying decisions, is just getting into particulars of the point that, when you honestly think about things, don't do anything other than to reaffirm it, because if one has to get that deep into detail to try and debunk its role as a factor, then it must be one hell of a factor indeed.
This conversation isn't even between Wii U and Dreamcast anymore, but it is applicable there, and any other, similar sort of scenario. You may not be interested in continuing this debate any longer (and frankly, I feel I've already proven my points and countered yours sufficiently), but if it's been good for one thing, it's for highlighting the myriad of complex variables that go into something that can so easily be written off as "lolz console warz!".
foobarry81
Member
Not going to read the rest, gonna stop you right there.
People can get connected to anything. Or not. Clearly you are emotionally connected to your DC. I would even say deeply. Like almost a love affair or a father-son relationship.
There are people who don't connect to material things at all however, other than seeing it as their property. Pictures of consoles stuffed with dead cockroaches, or that are abused otherwise, can easily be found online and will tell you as much. On Youtube there are plenty of videos of people destroying consoles for entertainment.
Clearly you are unable to place yourself in the shoes of someone who sees a console as a consumer product in the capitalistic sense. Which is necessary if you want to look at it objectively. As such your view on things will always be biased by your emotional involvement and not very rational either.
Edit: just read that again. Let it sink in, and realize how bonkers this is, and why I stopped reading there.
How do you think a scientist works? Do you think a scientist factors in his or her personal judgement when he or she is researching a certain topic? Even if he or she is emotionally connected (e.g. research is about cancer and a sibling died of cancer), they need to set aside their personal feelings to make an objective analysis.
So, yes, even if something can get you emotionally involved, you need to set that aside if you want to make an objective analysis.
(Please don't reply again that you don't know how exactly science works, but that you don't need to and that you can apply "some logic" to it...)
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
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.
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.
The Wii U is/was awful.
I have probably said it before around here but the last decent Nintendo console was the N64. Everything since has been either a let down or gimmicky rubbish.
The NX has to be good or I really do fear for Nintendo. And this comes from someone who adored their machines as a kid.
I have probably said it before around here but the last decent Nintendo console was the N64. Everything since has been either a let down or gimmicky rubbish.
The NX has to be good or I really do fear for Nintendo. And this comes from someone who adored their machines as a kid.
Opinionatedfish
Member
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.
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.
foobarry81
Member
Wow, that is completely beside the point. Not unexpectedly.
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.
Honestly, it almost looks like you're incapable of thinking rationally about anything. Again, it's not because your gut feeling tells you that specs are super important, that they actually are. I think it's safe to say that I have nothing, absolutely nothing to learn from you on the debating front. But do keep telling yourself that you are a debating wonder.
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.
Yes, really. No browser games. Actual releases. Mega Drive Collection would count as a single unit.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Not everything. Lack of Love, D2, Tech Romancer, Power Smash, Segagaga, MSR, Project Justice....there's still quite a few games that haven't seen ports to other systems, and it's highly likely they ever will. You also have to consider that such shouldn't probably be used as a judgement of relative value proposition: I'm sure Splatoon and Smash 4 (and possibly games like Pokken) will find their way to the NX as remasters at some point or playable up there perfectly fine in one way or another. Does that suddenly deflate the value of the Wii U? Many of PS2's best games are available on PS360, such as MGS2, the GOW games, Jak and Daxter etc. Does that weaken the library of the PS2 or be used against PS2's value proposition? Imo, that shouldn't be a consideration in measuring the worth of these systems when they were still on the market or in judging their library in terms of software quality and diversity.
Of course, you may have a different opinion on what the system's best games are, and that's fine. But the ones I mentioned are also considered among some of the best on the platform by reviewers and many fans, and have yet to find a home on other platforms officially.
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.
That being said, 100% not surprised you chose to restrict those interpretations completely so you could get all binary domain in here again.
perfectchaos007
Member
I wonder if those who are saying Dreamcast would also put Dreamcast over more successful consoles like PS3, Xbox, and Gamecube
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Some people put OG Xbox over PS2 so it wouldn't surprise me. As long as the reasonings for them doing so aren't based in supposed facts that can be easily disproven ("No, it sold more than that. The other units just aren't accounted for!" or "It has more games in (insert genere)", when a quick five-minute search could prove that incorrect), then it's fair game.
foobarry81
Member
You simply don't understand the word "objective", do you? Because all you do is "counter" (notice the quotes, because you're not really countering anything) it with your own personal opinion and now also the personal opinion of a few people on here.
Objectively though, if you look at the life of the Wii U as it is now, the Wii U simply has A LOT more games available than the DC ever had during its lifetime and well after it. And as a result it's statistically as good as impossible for the DC to have more quality games. Because no matter how top heavy the DC supposedly is (something that is debateable, but I granted you that it was), the huge difference in absolute numbers would still give it to Wii U. These are facts, that you think you can counter with feelings. Well, you can't and you didn't. Because that's not how being rational works.
I will tell you more: there's absolutely NO science to what you wrote here at all. Nothing. Nada. Niente. Njet. This is you posting your personal feelings again. You have no proof, just your gut feeling that you are on to something.
(Again more baseless speculation on your part, based on your own personal prefence.) It being the main reason or not is not relevant when you compare both consoles. To you personally it might be a reason for not buying a Wii U, but when looking at the state of Wii U vs DC it doesn't matter why someone bought the console. In the end both ended up selling similar amounts anyway, regardless of the reasons.
The DC's lifetime was not a "better" because more people thought the specs were cool, and therefor bought the console. In fact, if that had actually mattered, more people would've bought the console.
No, you do actually have trouble understanding parts of what I wrote. Maybe you're just not as bright as you think you are, mr. debating wonder.
And again: I didn't pretend they are scientists. But of course you can't deny that (because of said awful reading skills) so you quickly change the subject with a cheap low blow.
I thought "specs mattered so badly and the DC blew its predecessors out of the water, whereas the Wii U is subpar in all departments vs its competitors"? Surely that means you think the DC is the better console, does it not? With specs being the defining factor and all.
Why are you even fighting this, lol? You've made it more than clear enough that you do not value the Wii U as highly as the DC. All of that was based on your personal preference. Something that I said was not interesting to me. Not because I cannot value a personal opinion, but because it is useless if you're going to make an objective comparison of two systems.
So, yes, I have zero interest in changing my personal opinion, because I haven't even stated my personal opinion on the consoles. What I did state though is how I approach this whole comparison and why I think it's valid.
Your lack of reading skills and/or your unwillingness to be rational about this is frustrating.
Yes, you are the fanboy, because in case you haven't noticed: I don't want to speak in terms of personal preferences. Because that is exactly what fanboys do. And if both sides do that, you get fanboy/console wars.
In order to avoid that, I need you to put your personal preferences aside and try to look objectively at the situation.
It doesn't have to be a subjective topic though. YOU keep making it subjective with your personal preference obsession. I suspect because you don't know how to be objective?
No, I want you to STOP bringing up your personal opinion when it's purely based on your gut feeling. Be the fanboy in your own time, and stick to the facts here. Do you see me bringing up my personal opinion?
This technological impact on the industry you speak of for example. Where is your evidence? Your reasoning so far is pretty much that the DC was highly influential because it blew gen 5 out of the water. That is not evidence. That is you making things up. Did any competitor actually rip off the optical disc the DC used? Did anyone copy the VMU? Did anyone copy that controller? Do you really believe the DC was the first network capable game machine?
That is how it started out. You brought up specs in the context of the graphics of the DC blowing previous gen consoles out of the water. This is purely on you, and I haven't changed my interpretation of specs in the meantime.
Why would I? BC is also a 'spec' if you will, and I've always treated that separately.
I didn't repackage anything. It's a pretty accurate representation of the kind of cyclical reasoning your "logic" is rife of.
As for specs and marketing. I actually brought up marketing. And then, because you realized (for once) I was actually on to something, you adopted that and are pathetically attempting to make that your own now. I guess that is also part of your idea of "countering" me, lol.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
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.
My choice never objectively stated the Dreamcast having the objectively better library, just a library that subjectively appeals to me more and a lot of other people more. Yada yada preference, yada yada feeds into purchasing habits etc. Specs having an intangible effect on areas of product development, marketing and consumer awareness even if they're accurate or inaccurate simply by virtue of being a thing, and therefore a factor. Of what weight depends on the person viewing them.
I've said my piece. Let's agree to disagree and be done with this.
My choice never objectively stated the Dreamcast having the objectively better library, just a library that subjectively appeals to me more and a lot of other people more. Yada yada preference, yada yada feeds into purchasing habits etc. Specs having an intangible effect on areas of product development, marketing and consumer awareness even if they're accurate or inaccurate simply by virtue of being a thing, and therefore a factor. Of what weight depends on the person viewing them.
I've said my piece. Let's agree to disagree and be done with this.
foobarry81
Member
Really now? What a joke! Weren't you the one claiming that it is impossible to be objective about such "a subjective matter as a home console because people are strongly connected to it"? But now somehow you managed to do the impossible and laid out 'objective reasons'. I guess you are a magician of some sort in your own world.
You said it right: you believe stuff, you don't know anything, you are completely clueless about objectivity. You know another word though ("binary") which you keep abusing, but clearly also don't really understand. Frankly, you are the worst debater I've ever seen on here.
Honest question: are you high on a regular basis? Are you familiar with the term 'suspension of disbelief'? Because I really can't believe how someone could get this far up their own arse, when they're not in some kind of delirious state.
SoulUnison
Banned
I loved the Dreamcast. Love, love, super-diddly-loved it. ...
That said, the Wii U got a Smash Bros.
That said, the Wii U got a Smash Bros.
Prisoner KSC2-303
Member
Once the dust has settled, I think it'll be remembered well by Nintendo fans, particularly those who like platformers. The first party output has been of a high standard, but not nearly varied enough. I'd wager when it's viewed as a retro system it'll be seen as a fun oddity that had a meagre selection of stellar titles.
If anything. it's a perfect retro console, as it'll be fairly simple for collectors to amass most of the decent titles.
The Dreamcast will, however, be fondly remembered by a wider audience, and it had the better life.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
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? That it's had a "better life", as per the OP's wording? Where are your facts (outside of dragging in the libraries of other consoles) to support your claim that Wii U has an objectively higher quality of software over Dreamcast? Where is your argument to parlay this to those who prefer or answered Dreamcast, in a way that gets them to view the two systems in a more even light or even choose Wii U instead?
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.
I will go over my objective points once again:
DREAMCAST:
-Increased storage medium size for game capacities
-First system with standardized built-in modem for online gaming
-First console to achieve arcade-perfect capabilities
-Had the first cel-shaded video game (Jet Set Radio)
-Had the first 3D sprawling open-world epic adventure game(s)
-First console with VGA output support
-First console with a "screen-in-the-controller" concept i.e VMU
-First console to provide online save backups
WII U:
-First console with a tablet controller
-Off TV play
-Amiibos
-Has the first kid-friendly TPS (Splatoon)
.....And that about covers it for the both of them. Not only are Dreamcast's more in terms of number, it's quite easy to trace their influence across a wider gamut of the industry than you can about Wii U's features such as Off-TV play (which probably served as some basis for MS's TV integration in XBO) and Amiibos (which are really an extension of Activision's Skylanders idea, but Amiibos have enough twists on it to make it their own thing).
That's it. I'm done arguing this with you. Leave well-enough alone. Take solace in your opinion, as I will with mine. We've said enough on this.
foobarry81
Member
Glad to have helped you out there, because the world must be awfully tough to someone as delusional as you. So I do hope you did actually make some money off of all this.
Like I mentioned earlier, it's frustrating to see you reply stuff that is so far out (and actually believe that you are on to something and are winning the argument, lol). There must be pot involved, or something stronger even. Sarcasm keeps me from outright calling you worse.
I posted the facts, you failed (or refused) to read them.
The only thing that ultimately matters in the life of a console is the games. Wii U has more games if you include its backwards compatibility, eShop and VC, and it has that much more games that it's statistically virtually impossible for the DC to have more quality titles.
If you compare consoles's lives, you have to look at what you, as a player, get to play on it. That's really all that matters. A console is a device to play games on. It's not that you buy it because it has RAM and you can lick that, or to use the optical disc drive as a cup holder. It's a means to play games, and in the old days that was really the only thing you could use it for too. The Wii U actually also has that over the DC, that you can use it for other purposes than just gaming, but I didn't even bring that up.
The facts that you posted (rather late, I might add, because up until now you've only been posting nonsense and your feelings) are not really something that made the Dreamcast have a better life. Sadly, a couple of them aren't even true. Which honestly doesn't surprise me, because you are generally so uninformed it's painful to watch. And most of them don't do a whole lot to make any console's life better, let alone the DC's.
E.g.: Increased storage medium size for game capacities
How laughable of an argument is this really? This is a completely useless fact, that you dig up here. Hook up a 6 Terabyte HDD to Wii U and you have increased storage too. You can put ENDLESS amounts of DLC on it. Hurrah! Does it give the Wii U a better life though? Did the increased storage medium give the DC a better life? Nope.
E.g.: First system with standardized built-in modem for online gaming
Enlighten me what's the practical difference between a built-in modem and loose modem that is connected to the system? There were consoles before that supported a modem, like the mighty Apple Pippin. Heck, even the MSX (home computer/console hybrid) supported a modem. How does the fact that it was built-in changed the DC's life? It probably made the console pricier. I guess you feel that pricier is better?
Also how many games and how many people actually used it. The first console that was actually somewhat of a success when it comes to online gaming is the original XBOX. It had around 1 million online gamers, which is roughly a 30th of the install base. Or 3,3%. I don't know the exact amount of people playing online on DC, but it's probably less than 1% of the install base. One percent! That is how much impact the built-in modem had on the life of the DC. Virtually nothing.
Like I said, there were modems before for online gaming, and the fact that it was built-in is hardly a major achievement when it didn't really change the way people played games. The first real "online console" was the original XBOX.
E.g. First console to achieve arcade-perfect capabilities
Nope. This is factually wrong. There were arcade-perfect ports on older consoles too.
Unless you mean something else with "arcade-perfect capabilities", like how it made you feel like you were in the arcades or something.
E.g. Had the first cel-shaded video game (Jet Set Radio) / Had the first 3D sprawling open-world epic adventure game(s)
Honestly, I don't see how one cel-shaded game changed the DC's life, but if you feel like this is a major point, I'll let you have it. Even though I think JSR is an overrated game. It controls terribly for starters.
As for the "3D sprawling open-world epic adventure games" (that's awfully specific), some may argue that Zelda: Ocarina of Time is just that. But I guess you will argue that Ocarina is not a "sprawling" game or something, lol.
E.g. First console with VGA output support
Wrong. The PC Engine supports RGB even.
E.g. First console with a "screen-in-the-controller" concept i.e VMU
Yep, and it made such an impact on the games industry that up until today nobody cares about the VMU. Definitely made the DC's life better. Most definitely.
But sure, the DC was the first (and only) console with a VMU. What an impact it had on the industry...
E.g. First console to provide online save backups
Like online gaming, I doubt a lot of people actually used it. So again, it doesn't really make the life of the DC any better.
But sure: this is actually something valid you brought up. It was about time, lol.
Again, your brains fail to connect the right dots here. I am NOT referring to Metacritic scores. I actually posted before that Metacritic are not an objective source for valuing the quality of games. Something you ignored or didn't understand. Alas...
I made abstraction of scores (which you probably find too hard) and made the initial assumption that each console has a similar percentage of quality games in its library. Which means that if your library is a lot larger (Wii U >>> DC), the absolute number of quality games must be higher. Basic logic.
But let's assume, as you claim, that the DC was actually a top heavy system and thus has a higher-than-average percentage of quality games. Even in that case it still would have less quality because of the great difference in absolute numbers (of games) between both systems. I actually even showed you that with numbers (scroll up and read up on it, if you need to), but it was probably too hard to understand, or you despise maths or whatever, and so it's all invalid in your opinion. Because ultimately you really only accept facts when you like them.
So these are NOT just assumptions on my part. It's a simple statistical analysis. It's maths really. I exhausted all possible cases only to find that the DC statistically cannot have more quality games than the Wii U.
It requires you to be able to make abstraction of things however, and to understand how statistics work. And you seem to lack the education to be able to do so. Otherwise you wouldn't keep missing the point like you do.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
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.