Jimquisition: Why the Wii U May Have Already "Won" Next-gen
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
That bit at the end was just plain perfect. How he shifted from the spazout to just calmly clicking the bottle shut was great, and that perfectly comedicly timed bit falling off - Thank god he got through that one take without laughing, because you couldn't ever get that to happen again without it looking authentic.
Honestly, the reason I'm not planning on buying the WiiU isn't because I'm not liking the tablet concept, I actually think it's a brilliant idea, and it'll be interesting to see developers implement it. However, there weren't really any games that came out for the Wii that I really enjoyed, most of them just being kinda meh for me. I'll wait to see what games come out for a year or two, but until then, I'm just going to stick to my PS3.
Stalling and drawing out the argument? Talk about projecting. The only one "stalling" here is you.Foolproof said:
Instead of actually refuting my claim, you simply throw into question how I provided my claim.
All but the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, in this case, an extremely weak straw-man.
For a game to be considered "indie", it had to be developed, funded, and produced independently. I.E. a single company handled the games production. If more than one company is involved, and more than one games company is credited on the box or in the opening credit screens, then it's NOT an "indie" game.
I don't care if the credits included a small company like Giant Sparrow and a large company like Sony, or two small independent companies like Mojang and Re-Logic. If more than one company is making/funding the game, then it's not "indie".
How you're failing to grasp that is beyond me. Perhaps, instead of just calling me names you can try regaling us all with your definition of what constitutes an "indie game".
Oh, also, I love how you're operating under the assumption that I "hate" "big corporations" and, because of this, don't consider "indie" games made under their label as "indie".
I've no qualms with big game companies. I play indie games. I play big-budget triple-A games. I don't discriminate.
But if you are honestly failing to grasp the difference between these types of games, and failing to understand what the word "independent" actually means, then I'm not sure what else to say. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself in the futile hope you eventually understand my meaning.
Good day to you.
Semantics, somethings actual meaning is semantics.Foolproof said:
Hey maybe semantics doesn't mean anything here, his semantics are just semantics after all.
Semantic semantic semantic.
And yet...you STILL fail to actually address my points. You still haven't given your definition of what constitutes an indie game.Foolproof said:
No, all you've done (and indeed, what you've done with almost every one of your posts in this thread) is avoid the topic, toss insults around like they're going out of style, and call people stupid (in a round about way).
How is me pointing out the meaning of the word "independent", which is bringing up semantics, a bad thing? Seriously? That statement confounds me.
It's the equivalent of you and I arguing on what keeps us all on the ground and, after I bring up gravity, you say my point is flawed because I'm arguing semantics. Well no shit, that's the point. I have the answer to the question.
No. One of the "purest" ways to "show you that you are completely wrong" (love that superfluous you in there, by the way), is to avoid answering the question(s) presented to you and using straw-man arguments. Which, is all you've done.
You've offered no couter-points. You haven't shown any evidence to back up your claims. All you've done is insult me.
Classy. Really classy.
At this point, given you haven't actually done anything to prove me wrong, by process of elimination my stance is more "correct" than yours.
Also, to steer the conversation back a bit more on topic.
With Nintendo's apparent push towards gaming, from both its new controller (new game play styles), and its ability to play games on the screen itself, do you think that smaller development teams who may not have the traditional "big money" resources will be prevalent on the WiiU?.
Games like Journey, Castle Crashers, and other smaller team designed games seem to make some good headway on XBLA, PSN, and Steam, does Nintendo have an answer to this? Or do you think they will continue to rely on their Nintendshop (or whatever its called) and sell digital versions of older Nintendo games.
With Nintendo's apparent push towards gaming, from both its new controller (new game play styles), and its ability to play games on the screen itself, do you think that smaller development teams who may not have the traditional "big money" resources will be prevalent on the WiiU?.
Games like Journey, Castle Crashers, and other smaller team designed games seem to make some good headway on XBLA, PSN, and Steam, does Nintendo have an answer to this? Or do you think they will continue to rely on their Nintendshop (or whatever its called) and sell digital versions of older Nintendo games.
Oh Mr. Sterling. You assume I'm not doing the Mario all the time.Jimothy Sterling said:
All day. Every day.
"Swing your arms, from side-to-side..."
You and your wife in the same room while you play Maria she watches Mad Men. Are things so fucked up now in the economy that you can not buy a second screen to your house?! It's pretty stablished that if you can afford any console you can afford having more than one tv screen. Also you playing mario (imagine with audio) while someone else does another thing enterily sound as disruptive as chatting with someone while they take a dump or masturbate. Awful idea. People like to be engaged in an activity. WiiU is, sorry in advanced for my sincerity, a moronic idea, a gimmick for the mentaly retarded. Anyone know you can keep focus on two screens at the same time. One you suffer neglect while you pay attention to the other.
Given a topic I was engaged in within a week prior to this video, Jim's commentary on both the WiiU and the Bayonetta nearly killed me with the irony.
As fort his commentary on Smart TVs vs consoles...I kind of agree.
However, as long as regular, boring flat screens are relatively cheap, consoles will have at least another go at the market.
And despite what I've seen, I'm not terribly optimistic of Nintendo's latest gimmick.
Streaming the game to the tablet is pretty cool, but it isn't the sort of thing that sells a system for me. I'll wait and see if this develops any further, interesting design space, or if it's just going to be another design-fad like waggling.
Then again, I'm probably a minority market now seeing how I skipped both the 360 and the PS3 (only nabbing a Wii out of sheer idiocy), so what the hell do I know?
The warning signs were already there.
As fort his commentary on Smart TVs vs consoles...I kind of agree.
However, as long as regular, boring flat screens are relatively cheap, consoles will have at least another go at the market.
And despite what I've seen, I'm not terribly optimistic of Nintendo's latest gimmick.
Streaming the game to the tablet is pretty cool, but it isn't the sort of thing that sells a system for me. I'll wait and see if this develops any further, interesting design space, or if it's just going to be another design-fad like waggling.
Then again, I'm probably a minority market now seeing how I skipped both the 360 and the PS3 (only nabbing a Wii out of sheer idiocy), so what the hell do I know?
He started at "Moving the Goalposts" waaaayyy back when he called the Gamecube a "dismal failure".Vigormortis said:
The warning signs were already there.
The reason why I'm not interested in smart TVs is because it doesn't give you the ability to swap out the functionality when needed.
Consoles do a great job in that regard. Not only can I switch out systems I don't like, but if no single system gives me all that I want, then I just connect them both.
Ironically, the ability to swap out the software in a TV isn't something that's technologically challenging. Depending on the design, the entire TV interface system, in every detail (right down to how you change channels), could be fully contained on an SD card and be swapped casually by the most untechnical of users.
I don't see the industry going that way, though. The TV manufacturers want to maintain an iron grip on which software is allowed, so they design it in precisely the opposite direction. They lock in their own software.
And that will be the undoing of the entire concept. The first time someone finds a feature that really annoys them, they'll shut off all the smart TV features, and plug in a console instead.
And what if your TV gets too old and the TV manufacturer decides not to bother supporting it anymore? Now they're stuck with this outdated system permanently glued into their TV. Is that person ever going to trust a smart TV again? Probably not. They'll just plug in a console, and never look back.
Consoles do a great job in that regard. Not only can I switch out systems I don't like, but if no single system gives me all that I want, then I just connect them both.
Ironically, the ability to swap out the software in a TV isn't something that's technologically challenging. Depending on the design, the entire TV interface system, in every detail (right down to how you change channels), could be fully contained on an SD card and be swapped casually by the most untechnical of users.
I don't see the industry going that way, though. The TV manufacturers want to maintain an iron grip on which software is allowed, so they design it in precisely the opposite direction. They lock in their own software.
And that will be the undoing of the entire concept. The first time someone finds a feature that really annoys them, they'll shut off all the smart TV features, and plug in a console instead.
And what if your TV gets too old and the TV manufacturer decides not to bother supporting it anymore? Now they're stuck with this outdated system permanently glued into their TV. Is that person ever going to trust a smart TV again? Probably not. They'll just plug in a console, and never look back.
There is no need to have "smart" functionality built into the TV, you can buy Blue-ray players with all of the features built in for less than £100 (including Sony funnily enough) and Android OS individual boxes for less than £70. Branded TVs from Samsung or Apple have a growing library of apps and digital content and allow you to swap or stream content between tablets, phones and your TV.dbenoy said:
Anyone buying a console for multi media that didn't want a games console too needs their heads examined, there are far better options with much greater value. If you do want a console then it makes sense, the PS3 for example is great value with it being a Blu-ray player, console and media device all for less than £200.
I also recall massive hype for the Wii. The WiiU doesn't have half the amount of excitment surrounding it. Not saying that the WiiU will fail, but it won't be as successful as the Wii.MegaManOfNumbers said:
And people have to stop carrying this notion that Nintendo is "printing money" and "laughing to the bank". All 3 console manufacturers have lost money this generation. Nintendo actually lost twice as much money as MS this fiscal year, and after slumping 3rd party sales its not hard to see why.