Zero Punctuation: The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

NuclearKangaroo:

yeah i mentioned that one and regardless the previous red factions also featured destructible terrain

Yes, previuos versions did feature it, however they done it very poorly and seem to abandon the concept couple levels in. and since you asked for good destructible enviroment, Guerilla is the one to go. I never played battlefield 3 but i heard you can take down whole hotels there with enough granade launcher ammo so if thats true that would qualify too i guess.

we have different definitions of innovation then

Yes we do. I am using the official definition
"1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced."

dude you totally should, atleast if you have any passing interest on strategy games

I agree. however my current list called "Games to play when time available" consists of 167 games (finished one yesterday!), so that may not be as easy as it sounds. Strategy is my favourite genre.

ANYWAYS, yes the old X-COM made good use of destructible environments

Looks like that brings it to 3 games total.

CriticKitten:

I just got through explaining to the other guy that we're not in middle school any more. You can't dismiss sources with your word, you need other sources that run contrary to it or at least shed doubt upon it. So I'd like to see which sources you have available that disprove mine.

This is so wrong......
If i were to give you a source (very bad one at that) that says there is unicorns living under my bed, you could not dismiss it unless you privide a source that proves otherwise? SO unless you invade my bedroom you have to accept that there are unicorns there? This is a very stupid model.

The_Kodu:

True but again the market for physical is still there and with only estimations from analysts so far we can only go with companies figures.

Certainly it exists. however it isnt such overwhelming majority as you make it out to be, and it is shrinking every year, what with EA reporting to have more sales digitally than physically, and thats the company that can afford releasing every gameo n phyiscal, which isnt true for something like Paradox.

Again true, though I thought the new console were mostly 1080p just about with only a few 720p upscaled games ?
by the time 4K comes out if services have improved we might be at the level of downloading blue ray games (if now is any indication of progress)

They claimed they would be before release. As it is right now only 1 game on Xbox manages 1080p and 60 fps. thier "Best looking game" Ryse runs at 900p. I am not sure at how many games on PS4 achieve that, but i wouldnt be surprised if that is also a low number. So if it cannot even get 1080p properly, doing 4k with the same machine is simply impossible.

Yes but there are people even worse internet wise.

just because some people cannot afford food does not mean we should stop stocking it in the market. I know there are people with diaup still and i pity them and wish they would rise up against their abusive ISPs, but hey, im asking people to work in unison, im evil communist right?

That would be if you were to say the future of gaming was entirely along the mobile route.

Entirely, or not, mobile gaming is the most profitable and fastest growing gaming market.

Because believe it or not there was a legitimate push to stop multi-disk games once it became possible to have larger discs.
This generation Microsoft have actually fined some developers who released games on multiple discs.

Because 1 DVD was cheaper than 6 CDs. Such is not a case of SSD vs 2 bluerays though.
And microsoft being a retard is hardly an argument.

[quoet]I think the largest app I have is 1.3GB and that's due to a large audio book component in it. Most apps tend to range from about 50 MB to 250MB. Compare that to console games.[/quote]
If i were to let my GPS to download its maps fully, would be over 4 GB just for europe alone. I dont count audiobooks as parts of app. if i did - thats easily ranging from 20gb and upwards.
It is true however that most games seems to be contempt within 100 mb.

Strazdas:
This is so wrong......
If i were to give you a source (very bad one at that) that says there is unicorns living under my bed, you could not dismiss it unless you privide a source that proves otherwise? SO unless you invade my bedroom you have to accept that there are unicorns there? This is a very stupid model.

You're about two days too late to inject yourself into this conversation.

Also, it's obvious you didn't read the conversation that it spawned, otherwise you'd realize that you just committed the same mistake as your predecessor and relied on reductio ad absurdum to make your case, demonstrating further why you shouldn't have even bothered jumping in.

Please refrain from inserting yourself into a conversation that has already concluded, especially if you're going to utilize known logical fallacies in doing so. As much as "using a bad source makes me look bad", using a logical fallacy looks far worse.

randomthefox:

the hidden eagle:

randomthefox:
The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

Have you even played the game?If not then stfu about things you don't know.ABLW is not a bad game at all.

I love how the INSTANT knee jerk reaction from the blind fanboy is "you have a different opinion than me? YOU MUST NOT HAVE PLAYED IT THEN!"

If your only argument is "stop talking", the most anti-think sentimentality the echo-chamber-effect of the internet has produced thus far, instead of an actual reasoned, credible, or even personal and subjective based response you should probably reassess your position.

Calling me a bind fanboy instantly throws your credibility out the window.My question is a valid one:have you played the game?If so then you would know ALBW is not a bad game,if I'm a blind fanboy then you're a person who trashes a game for no valid reason.

CriticKitten:

Thanatos2k:
BARELY more powerful

*sigh*

Are you one of those people who thought the Wii is just as good as the PS3/360 also and it was all the developer's faults that the games didn't look as good?

Do I need to pull out a link where EA tested Frostbite 2 on the Wii U and it couldn't perform? Theoretical specs always fall apart when people try to get code running on it in the real world.

http://nintendoeverything.com/15-ea-games-are-going-to-skip-wii-u-due-to-its-lack-of-support-for-frostbite-3/

No, it's called when a company says something you always assume it's a lie unless they show you otherwise. "Pledging support" has got to be the most empty nonsense, and you took them seriously? You believed *EA*???

Until they say "We are pledging to release *this game* on the Wii U" there's nothing to hold anyone accountable for. OBVIOUSLY their support is predicated on both how the console performed and how Nintendo treated support for the developers. Both were lacking. And so the empty promises were forgotten. Can you blame them? I don't. When Ubisoft pledged third party support and then their games didn't sell because Nintendo didn't even know how to market the console properly I don't blame them for pulling out.

Oh, so it's okay because "you can't trust devs"?

That's....incredibly bad logic. I mean, I don't know what else to say to that. You're excusing the liar for lying to you on the grounds that, well, he's a liar and it's what he does. Problem is, that doesn't excuse his lies at all. Sure, it makes you and anyone who believed the lies feel foolish, but it doesn't automatically excuse him from making them in the first place.

Well you clearly let Nintendo off the hook, given they've said stuff like:

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/04/02/satoru-iwata-hubris-versus-western-culture/

"It's important that you be able to supply software with no pause," said Iwata. "With the DS and Wii, following the titles that were released at launch, the momentum dropped when there was a gap in software releases. We're making plans so that this type of thing won't happen."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/324133/wii-u-will-learn-from-3ds-bitter-lesson-iwata-vows/

"We would like to show the final format of the Wii U at the E3 show next year. As we learned a bitter lesson with the launch of the Nintendo 3DS, we are trying to take every possible measure so that the Wii U will have a successful launch."

The lies start and end with Nintendo. Do I blame the publishers for pulling out after Nintendo promised them a strong launch and then didn't do a damn thing to ensure it? Let's see, they could either keep their "promise" to a liar and possibly end up with financial ruin, or not.

I don't blame them one bit, nor do I feel "foolish." Why? Because I was smart enough to know what was going to happen beforehand, and I *didn't* buy a half baked underpowered console with no hard drive space and limited online functionality at launch.

The excuse is "Nintendo tries to exert an iron grip over game development." It's been true since the NES days when Nintendo only let publishers publish a limited number of games per year. Companies HATE working with Nintendo. The reach of systems like the Wii made it profitable enough to suffer through that relationship. Now that the Wii U is a failure developers don't even need to think about it.

Looks like these developers totally disagree with your uncited claims. And that's just a sample.

It's sad, you just rail on how betrayed you felt about companies lying to you and here you are believing everything they say again. Psst - IT'S CALL PR.

Since you love spamming links, here's one for you:
http://operationrainfall.com/why-do-third-parties-hate-nintendo/

....Did you seriously just link vgchartz and pretend it's accurate?

Did you seriously just ignore numbers because they come from a site whose figures you disagree with, while providing no actual evidence to either dismiss their validity or to prove the contrary?

Yes, vgchartz is such a laughable "source" that anyone quoting it as factual deserved to be dismissively ignored and their argument not even considered. And I'll be doing that here.

Even Mario 3D World which is a near 10/10 game isn't doing it.

Actually, it totally is. Estimates are 220k units in November (most of which came from the last week of Nov, when the game released) and almost 500k units in December. Both of which are HUGE leaps above their sales figures for the months prior. It's hard to argue that the game didn't help sell units unless you're just blindly refusing to acknowledge the data.

Actually, it totally isn't:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-stock-nosedives-on-poor-wii-u-sales/1100-6417202/

The game didn't save the console as Nintendo hoped. They are not competing with the real next gen consoles. The game did NOT sell as many consoles as Nintendo told everyone it was going to. That is a FACT, one you cannot dispute.

randomthefox:
The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

The logic is simple.

1. Link to the Past is the best Zelda game.

2. Link Between Worlds is Link to the Past, but BETTER.

3. Thus, Link Between Worlds is the best Zelda game.

If you disagree with the first premise, you got problems.

Thanatos2k:
Are you one of those people who thought the Wii is just as good as the PS3/360 also and it was all the developer's faults that the games didn't look as good?

Do I need to pull out a link where EA tested Frostbite 2 on the Wii U and it couldn't perform? Theoretical specs always fall apart when people try to get code running on it in the real world.

http://nintendoeverything.com/15-ea-games-are-going-to-skip-wii-u-due-to-its-lack-of-support-for-frostbite-3/

Your article is grossly out of date.

EA backtracked on those claims shortly after making them.

So you're now trying to quote measurably false information to validate your opinion? I guess it's a step up from no evidence at all, but not much of one.

Well you clearly let Nintendo off the hook

No I didn't. I never said Nintendo doesn't deserve any blame. I said that it's stupid to put all of the blame on Nintendo, as you're doing.

The lies start and end with Nintendo.

Except as I've evidenced before, they clearly don't.

Do I blame the publishers for pulling out after Nintendo promised them a strong launch and then didn't do a damn thing to ensure it?

Pssst, "strong launch" means "good line up of games". Which is impossible if the devs promising those games don't deliver them. So you've just invalidated your own argument.

I *didn't* buy a half baked underpowered console with no hard drive space and limited online functionality at launch.

What a coincidence, neither have I.

It's sad, you just rail on how betrayed you felt about companies lying to you and here you are believing everything they say again. Psst - IT'S CALL PR.

Since you love spamming links, here's one for you:
http://operationrainfall.com/why-do-third-parties-hate-nintendo/

Ahem....

The Pretentious Opinionist is a column dedicated to my opinion and speculation. It does not represent oprainfall as a whole, nor the opinions of other staff members, nor does it necessarily have any basis in fact. It merely represents my possibly naive notion that people might be interested in what I have to say.

You're not even trying.

Yes, vgchartz is such a laughable "source" that anyone quoting it as factual deserved to be dismissively ignored and their argument not even considered. And I'll be doing that here.

And your evidence that vgchartz is a bad source is....where, exactly?

Actually, it totally isn't:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-stock-nosedives-on-poor-wii-u-sales/1100-6417202/

That report doesn't dismiss the articles I gave. Like, at all. That article discusses sales over the course of the year, what I linked was data about the sales in November and December. So I'm not even sure why you linked it, except to try and make it look like you actually looked up sources of information this time around when it's rather obvious you didn't.

The game didn't save the console as Nintendo hoped.

Of course not, one game can't save a console. Which is why I said that it'd be up to future games to continue that momentum. Are you actually paying attention to anything I say, or just sort of making up your own fictional argument to argue against?

They are not competing with the real next gen consoles. The game did NOT sell as many consoles as Nintendo told everyone it was going to. That is a FACT, one you cannot dispute.

Of course they're not. When did I argue that they were? Go ahead, find the quote of me claiming such. I'll wait.

Until then, kindly bow yourself out of this conversation. It's already long since been over.

CriticKitten:

Thanatos2k:
Are you one of those people who thought the Wii is just as good as the PS3/360 also and it was all the developer's faults that the games didn't look as good?

Do I need to pull out a link where EA tested Frostbite 2 on the Wii U and it couldn't perform? Theoretical specs always fall apart when people try to get code running on it in the real world.

http://nintendoeverything.com/15-ea-games-are-going-to-skip-wii-u-due-to-its-lack-of-support-for-frostbite-3/

Your article is grossly out of date.

EA backtracked on those claims shortly after making them.

So you're now trying to quote measurably false information to validate your opinion? I guess it's a step up from no evidence at all, but not much of one.

And yet, there's nothing there about the performance, which still sucks, and is still the reason EA is skipping most of the development off the Wii U.

Well you clearly let Nintendo off the hook

No I didn't. I never said Nintendo doesn't deserve any blame. I said that it's stupid to put all of the blame on Nintendo, as you're doing.

It's Nintendo's console. Of course they're to blame for the specs, the hardware, the price, the online functionality, and which first party games are available for it and when. Which as you've struggled hard to establish are what drives sales of Nintendo's consoles. So yeah, Nintendo is almost all to blame.

The lies start and end with Nintendo.

Except as I've evidenced before, they clearly don't.

"Nu uh!" Nice comeback there.

Do I blame the publishers for pulling out after Nintendo promised them a strong launch and then didn't do a damn thing to ensure it?

Pssst, "strong launch" means "good line up of games". Which is impossible if the devs promising those games don't deliver them. So you've just invalidated your own argument.

First party games. You've just validated my argument. None of those links you put out previously were companies promising LAUNCH LINEUP GAMES. No one failed to deliver on promises of game releases at or near launch, EXCEPT NINTENDO. Once the launch came and went and it was clear the console was where games go to die and Nintendo's system selling games were YEARS AWAY, people pulled out. It's completely logical.

It's sad, you just rail on how betrayed you felt about companies lying to you and here you are believing everything they say again. Psst - IT'S CALL PR.

Since you love spamming links, here's one for you:
http://operationrainfall.com/why-do-third-parties-hate-nintendo/

Ahem....

The Pretentious Opinionist is a column dedicated to my opinion and speculation. It does not represent oprainfall as a whole, nor the opinions of other staff members, nor does it necessarily have any basis in fact. It merely represents my possibly naive notion that people might be interested in what I have to say.

You're not even trying.

Um, what? It's an opinion column. You do know anyone stating the reasons why 3rd parties hate Nintendo is going to be AN OPINION, right?

The intellectually dishonest debate tactics continue.

Yes, vgchartz is such a laughable "source" that anyone quoting it as factual deserved to be dismissively ignored and their argument not even considered. And I'll be doing that here.

And your evidence that vgchartz is a bad source is....where, exactly?

Good god. Here, let me make it nice and simple for you. Go to Google. Type "vgchartz inaccurate" into the box and click the search button. Did you know on neogaf people who post vgchartz links are instantly banned? It's that pathetic a source. You already got raked over the coals by everyone else for posting flawed sources, why are you obsessed with another one?

Actually, it totally isn't:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-stock-nosedives-on-poor-wii-u-sales/1100-6417202/

That report doesn't dismiss the articles I gave. Like, at all. I'm not even sure why you linked it, except to try and make it look like you actually looked up sources of information this time around when it's rather obvious you didn't.

The game didn't save the console as Nintendo hoped.

Of course not, one game can't save a console. Which is why I said that it'd be up to future games to continue that momentum. Are you actually paying attention to anything I say, or just sort of making up your own fictional argument to argue against?

Wii Sports sold a console. So are you just going to ignore history and continue with "your own fictional argument"?

They are not competing with the real next gen consoles. The game did NOT sell as many consoles as Nintendo told everyone it was going to. That is a FACT, one you cannot dispute.

Of course they're not. When did I argue that they were? Go ahead, find the quote of me claiming such. I'll wait.

What are you even arguing about? Do you even remember? I stated what would be necessary to "turn the console around." Like the 3DS.

Selling some more units after a game came out is not turning the console around. You do know that, right? Why did you even start arguing with me, do you just like acting out?

Thanatos2k:
And yet, there's nothing there about the performance, which still sucks, and is still the reason EA is skipping most of the development off the Wii U.

Er, no, did you read that link? They clearly say that Frostbite 3 works on the console, but that they're not prioritizing production on the Wii U anyways. And we know why that's the case because they said in an earlier press release that they'd start making games for the console again if the console's sales improved.

Stop trying to worm your way out of obvious falsehoods, dude, it isn't working.

It's Nintendo's console. Of course they're to blame for the specs, the hardware, the price, the online functionality, and which first party games are available for it and when. Which as you've struggled hard to establish are what drives sales of Nintendo's consoles. So yeah, Nintendo is almost all to blame.

No, they're not "almost all to blame" either. Repetition doesn't make you any more correct.

"Nu uh!" Nice comeback there.

It's not so much "nu uh" as "I've already proven this false, so why are you repeating it again?". But I wouldn't honestly expect you to understand the difference anyways, so I'll let it go.

First party games. You've just validated my argument. None of those links you put out previously were companies promising LAUNCH LINEUP GAMES. No one failed to deliver on promises of game releases at or near launch, EXCEPT NINTENDO. Once the launch came and went and it was clear the console was where games go to die and Nintendo's system selling games were YEARS AWAY, people pulled out. It's completely logical.

Uh....wait, so you think that the console has absolutely no third-party games? That no one actually fulfilled their promise to put out a game on the Wii U on launch? Because....I'm not really sure how many more obviously false statements you can make before you reach critical mass, so you may want to chill for a bit.

What amuses me is that you've almost entirely 180'd your original argument. Before, it was "first-party games can't save the console", and now you're openly admitting that the console relies heavily on its first-party games in order to succeed.

Um, what? It's an opinion column. You do know anyone stating the reasons why 3rd parties hate Nintendo is going to be AN OPINION, right?

Except, you know, the actual words of those third party devs. Because they would probably know why they did it. Just sayin'.

And a lot of them have already said why. It's because the console isn't selling. Which leads into a self-feeding cycle of stupidity that nearly killed the 3DS for the longest time: console isn't selling, so we don't make games, which ensures that the console continues not to sell, and so on.

The intellectually dishonest debate tactics continue.

What? XD

You haven't made a single accurate statement in the entire run length of this thread! Who are you fooling, dude?

Good god. Here, let me make it nice and simple for you.

No, it is your job to prove my sources inaccurate, not mine. So either do it, or leave it be. I'm not interested in playing games.

Wii Sports sold a console. So are you just going to ignore history and continue with "your own fictional argument"?

Haha, what? Are you serious? Are you really gonna claim that Wii Sports was the sole reason for the console's strong sales?

image

Yeah, obviously it had nothing to do with the fact that the console initially launched with a full-fledged Zelda title (Twilight Princess), and had two major titles (Mario Party 8 and Super Mario Galaxy) out within a year of the console's release, along with a Metroid game and the new Smash Bros both being out by early 2008. Yes, clearly, Wii Sports was the only reason to buy a Wii. Ever.

Now let's compare the Wii U to that. The console's over a year old now and they're *just* releasing their first 3D Mario title for it a year later (a game which, mind, directly led to over 500k unit sales within a month of its release). Smash Bros is almost two years out from its initial release, there's no word on a Zelda or Metroid. If anything, Wii U's failure to put forth first-party games is evidenced quite clearly here, and it shows why the console's doing badly.

What are you even arguing about? Do you even remember?

Yeah, I do. I'm not sure you remember, though, because you keep making this off-point comments about things I never said. I'm not sure if you're trying to straw-man or if you've just totally forgotten that the original debate was about whether or not first-party titles would significantly improve the console's prospects.

And as the data from the last several Nintendo consoles has shown....yes, it totally would. All you've done since then is try to argue that it's all about the third-parties and how Nintendo is to blame for their departure and yada yada. It's all a bunch of nonsense. Even an amateur analyst can look at the previous data for Nintendo consoles, notice that most of their consoles sell first-party games better than anything else, and come to the conclusion that an improvement in first-party titles will help right the ship. Nintendo doesn't necessarily "need" third-parties, they've gotten along rather well without them for a very long time now.

Selling some more units after a game came out is not turning the console around.

Uh, yes it is. Who says they have to compete with PS4 or Xbone sales, besides you? Because, they don't. All they have to do is get the console to start turning a profit....which is not necessarily all that difficult. The console's barely being sold at a loss right now, so they can turn an approximate profit with a few solid titles.

Why did you even start arguing with me?

I'm beginning to wonder that, myself. You've not presented anything resembling a fact in this entire discussion. In fact, I've proven you wrong on virtually every single point you've made, and all you're doing now is harping on the exact same things over and over as if repetition will change the fabric of reality to make it true. So it's increasingly obvious that further discussion here is pointless....I think I'll just save myself the time from now on.

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

yeah i mentioned that one and regardless the previous red factions also featured destructible terrain

Yes, previuos versions did feature it, however they done it very poorly and seem to abandon the concept couple levels in. and since you asked for good destructible enviroment, Guerilla is the one to go. I never played battlefield 3 but i heard you can take down whole hotels there with enough granade launcher ammo so if thats true that would qualify too i guess.

we have different definitions of innovation then

Yes we do. I am using the official definition
"1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced."

dude you totally should, atleast if you have any passing interest on strategy games

I agree. however my current list called "Games to play when time available" consists of 167 games (finished one yesterday!), so that may not be as easy as it sounds. Strategy is my favourite genre.

ANYWAYS, yes the old X-COM made good use of destructible environments

Looks like that brings it to 3 games total.

like i said we have different definitions, but if thats yours, then destructible environments go a looong way back, they didnt start last gen

i consider an innovation in GAMING something new that starts a trend

CriticKitten:

Thanatos2k:
And yet, there's nothing there about the performance, which still sucks, and is still the reason EA is skipping most of the development off the Wii U.

Er, no, did you read that link? They clearly say that Frostbite 3 works on the console, but that they're not prioritizing production on the Wii U anyways. And we know why that's the case because they said in an earlier press release that they'd start making games for the console again if the console's sales improved.

I know you're not a programmer, so I'll let you know - there is a huge difference between "works" and "performs well."

Frostbite 2 and 3 may "work" but they cannot perform well enough to release the same games on the platform without extensive optimization work (if they'll run well at all), hence why EA no longer considers the development work necessary to port games a priority.

It's Nintendo's console. Of course they're to blame for the specs, the hardware, the price, the online functionality, and which first party games are available for it and when. Which as you've struggled hard to establish are what drives sales of Nintendo's consoles. So yeah, Nintendo is almost all to blame.

No, they're not "almost all to blame" either. Repetition doesn't make you any more correct.

Saying "you're wrong!" and then providing no actual reason why doesn't make you correct. It's not even an argument actually. This seems common amongst the things you post. Nintendo failed to launch the console properly, without an acceptable first party game lineup, without an acceptable online component (multiplayer and digital distribution), with marketing that was confusing to consumers, and with underpowered hardware that was harder to develop for than that of its competition. Those are the facts. No amount of off-topic links you post are going to refute that reality.

First party games. You've just validated my argument. None of those links you put out previously were companies promising LAUNCH LINEUP GAMES. No one failed to deliver on promises of game releases at or near launch, EXCEPT NINTENDO. Once the launch came and went and it was clear the console was where games go to die and Nintendo's system selling games were YEARS AWAY, people pulled out. It's completely logical.

Uh....wait, so you think that the console has absolutely no third-party games? That no one actually fulfilled their promise to put out a game on the Wii U on launch? Because....I'm not really sure how many more obviously false statements you can make before you reach critical mass, so you may want to chill for a bit.

What are you talking about? What are you even arguing about? We were talking about Nintendo's promises to launch the console properly, remember? And their promises to not have huge gaps between first party releases, remember? Stay on topic, please.

What amuses me is that you've almost entirely 180'd your original argument. Before, it was "first-party games can't save the console", and now you're openly admitting that the console relies heavily on its first-party games in order to succeed.

Because it's already dead. They needed the first party titles at launch to sell consoles to entice the third parties to develop for it, producing a healthy console lineup. They failed. Now they need to get the consoles out there in any way possible to get the third parties to even look at them. Hence the steps I outlined in my original post to try to turn it around, namely a price drop and giving up on the tablet controller which also is driving away 3rd party development. More frequent first party releases to sell more consoles wouldn't hurt either! But they're already in catch up mode, and I don't think they're going to be able to ever catch up if their attitude doesn't change, and going by the things they've said lately (and their disgusting foray into mobile games) it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Do you really dispute those things I just said? Or are you one of those internet debate legends who just likes arguing and will focus only on trying to pick apart specific lines while ignoring the actual points being made?

Um, what? It's an opinion column. You do know anyone stating the reasons why 3rd parties hate Nintendo is going to be AN OPINION, right?

Except, you know, the actual words of those third party devs. Because they would probably know why they did it. Just sayin'.

Hmm, which are worth more, words, or actions? Just sayin'

And a lot of them have already said why. It's because the console isn't selling. Which leads into a self-feeding cycle of stupidity that nearly killed the 3DS for the longest time: console isn't selling, so we don't make games, which ensures that the console continues not to sell, and so on.

The 3DS had no competition, so eventually the third parties decided that there was enough consoles out there to justify development. (After Nintendo cut the price, bought more 3rd party development, released more system-selling first party games, and gave up on the 3D gimmick).

The Wii U won't have that same luxury. Hell, they had a one year head start on the other consoles and frittered it away.

Good god. Here, let me make it nice and simple for you.

No, it is your job to prove my sources inaccurate, not mine. So either do it, or leave it be. I'm not interested in playing games.

Did you forget the giant hole that got ripped through your "sources" by all the other posters? Give me a break. And now you're quoting vgchartz. You're not worth it.

Wii Sports sold a console. So are you just going to ignore history and continue with "your own fictional argument"?

Haha, what? Are you serious? Are you really gonna claim that Wii Sports was the sole reason for the console's strong sales?

Compare the sales of those games to the amount of consoles sold. Wii Sports has more sales than all of them put together. Yes, Wii Sports sold the console to non-gamers. That's the whole story of the Wii's success! Is this some kind of historical revisionism?

Selling some more units after a game came out is not turning the console around.

Uh, yes it is. Who says they have to compete with PS4 or Xbone sales, besides you? Because, they don't. All they have to do is get the console to start turning a profit....which is not necessarily all that difficult. The console's barely being sold at a loss right now, so they can turn an approximate profit with a few solid titles.

Oh I see, now you're moving the goal posts. Suddenly being the market leader compared with the other consoles, like they were with the Wii and the DS and the 3DS isn't the goal.

You'll say anything to try and twist things in your favor. I'm done with you.

Yahtzee, just review the fucking game and get it over with.

Thanks for bringing up the importance of local multiplayer to the survival of consoles. It really isn't common enough today, and lots of games that allow more than 2 players refuse to allow a party of 4 to play on the same system for no other reason than some bean counter figured out they sold less systems that way. And yet, they might stop managing to sell consoles much at all if they don't get back to it. That's something that I've been noticing about ALL business these days: short-term gains for long term losses. Make some more local multiplayer games jackasses, we can only play smash bros and halo non stop for so long.

CriticKitten:

Strazdas:
This is so wrong......
If i were to give you a source (very bad one at that) that says there is unicorns living under my bed, you could not dismiss it unless you privide a source that proves otherwise? SO unless you invade my bedroom you have to accept that there are unicorns there? This is a very stupid model.

You're about two days too late to inject yourself into this conversation.

Also, it's obvious you didn't read the conversation that it spawned, otherwise you'd realize that you just committed the same mistake as your predecessor and relied on reductio ad absurdum to make your case, demonstrating further why you shouldn't have even bothered jumping in.

Please refrain from inserting yourself into a conversation that has already concluded, especially if you're going to utilize known logical fallacies in doing so. As much as "using a bad source makes me look bad", using a logical fallacy looks far worse.

sorry for not dedicating my life to responding to escapist forums as fast as possible. I read the conversation after my post when i could and thus wrote the post when i could. As far as i know the rule is 30 days, not 2.

Yes, indeed i used redcutio ad absurdum to prove your point false. Please note that reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy. If your argument does not hold in extreme situation then it does not hold period.

Also the conversation is not over as evident by posts in the conversation posted after your response i am currently quoting.

Thanatos2k:

Yes, vgchartz is such a laughable "source" that anyone quoting it as factual deserved to be dismissively ignored and their argument not even considered. And I'll be doing that here.

can you provide evidence of this because i ahve been using VGChartz and if they actually are false i should stop doing that. but only if you can prove they are actually false.

NuclearKangaroo:

like i said we have different definitions, but if thats yours, then destructible environments go a looong way back, they didnt start last gen

i consider an innovation in GAMING something new that starts a trend

i did reconcile the point that it didnt start in previous generation. as far as definitions go, you can use different definitions than that of what it actually means, but that does not make you right. we have dictionaries for a reason.

Thanatos2k:

Saying "you're wrong!" and then providing no actual reason why doesn't make you correct. It's not even an argument actually. This seems common amongst the things you post.

that seems this persons main tactic in arguing. Whenever he disagrees with me he always just spouts "Your wrong" or "nonesense" and provide no argument against mine.

Strazdas:
Yes, indeed i used redcutio ad absurdum to prove your point false. Please note that reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy. If your argument does not hold in extreme situation then it does not hold period.

Actually, it is a logical fallacy, and that's exactly how it works: it reduces a situation to an extreme and ludicrous example in an attempt to prove it false. It can be used to make certain points, absolutely, but it is not a proper debate method in this scenario.

Please read the link you were given before speaking to me again.

Also the conversation is not over as evident by posts in the conversation posted after your response i am currently quoting.

No, the discussion is most certainly already over. I've already decided to ignore further posts by the quoted individual as it's obviously not worth the effort of continuing to reply to him when he can't prove anything he says, whilst arguing a case that I never once made in the first place.

can you provide evidence of this because i ahve been using VGChartz and if they actually are false i should stop doing that. but only if you can prove they are actually false.

No, he can't. I already asked him to, twice, and he just keeps refusing to back this claim up with anything.

that seems this persons main tactic in arguing. Whenever he disagrees with me he always just spouts "Your wrong" or "nonesense" and provide no argument against mine.

You mean besides all of those quotes and links I make which completely prove everything you said wrong, right? Or do you just ignore those because it would require reading to acknowledge them? Heck, look at the example above: you just made a completely false statement about the link I gave you, when a mere two paragraphs of reading could have saved you that embarrassment.

Ugh. I had hoped that eventually you might be able to provide a more rational argument in some other future discussion, but it's clear that's never gonna happen. You can't even read links when you're given them. I'll just leave you to respond however you like, I really don't care any more.

CriticKitten:
Actually, it is a logical fallacy, and that's exactly how it works: it reduces a situation to an extreme and ludicrous example in an attempt to prove it false.

Please read the link you were given before speaking to me again.

If only you had bothered to read the link yourself you would have realized that it is not.

No, the discussion is most certainly already over. I've already decided to ignore further posts by the quoted individual as it's obviously not worth the effort of continuing to reply to him when he can't prove anything he says, whilst arguing a case that I never once made in the first place.

I ignore other people therefore im right.

You mean besides all of those quotes and links I make which completely prove everything you said wrong, right?

Is your memory so short or do you really think that saying "nonsense" is a fair argument?
And if you still think links provided by you about WiiU power in this topic prove anything i guess getting out of discussion is the best thing you can do.

Strazdas:
can you provide evidence of this because i ahve been using VGChartz and if they actually are false i should stop doing that. but only if you can prove they are actually false.

As I said, go to Google. Type "vgchartz inaccurate" into the box. Click the search button, and you will find page after page after page of evidence on how vgchartz uses little more than guesswork to produce their numbers.

If only you had bothered to read the link yourself you would have realized that it is not.

That's the best part of how he "debates." He demands evidence but when you give it to him he clearly is not reading it.

No, he can't. I already asked him to, twice, and he just keeps refusing to back this claim up with anything.

I posted simple instructions, Kitty. Are you unable to follow them?

Honestly if you aren't going to bother reviewing the game then don't. Seriously just...don't do it. Don't make me waste 2 minutes of my time thinking I'm going to see one thing, and only seeing a 5 minute rant/discussion about whatever grievances with X studio/company/publisher.

Slap that on a Extra Punctuation and review a game you genuinely care for. That is all.

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

like i said we have different definitions, but if thats yours, then destructible environments go a looong way back, they didnt start last gen

i consider an innovation in GAMING something new that starts a trend

i did reconcile the point that it didnt start in previous generation. as far as definitions go, you can use different definitions than that of what it actually means, but that does not make you right. we have dictionaries for a reason.

fine whatever you want, geez, you could try being more agreeable

i just said what i considered innovation in gaming because going by the dictionary definition nearly every game is innovative because its new at one point, which is clearly problematic

Thanatos2k:

As I said, go to Google. Type "vgchartz inaccurate" into the box. Click the search button, and you will find page after page after page of evidence on how vgchartz uses little more than guesswork to produce their numbers.

Ok, so i entertained your lack of any evidence and typed the google phrase. I got a lot of forum arguments (just like this, without any evidence), a few opinion articles and a bunch of dead links.
Oh, and i also found comprehensive arguments to the contrary.
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/82746/editorial-why-it-is-so-easy-to-blame-vgchartz/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/06/behind-the-flamewar-creator-of-vgchartz-speaks/

So i conclude that you have no evidence to support your claim for their inaccuracy and as such dismiss your claim.

Edit: also notice how every result that isnt some forum conversation is 4 years+ old. You know, a site like this can change A LOT in 4 years.

NuclearKangaroo:

fine whatever you want, geez, you could try being more agreeable

i just said what i considered innovation in gaming because going by the dictionary definition nearly every game is innovative because its new at one point, which is clearly problematic

Im sorry for not being agreeable about using whatever definition we personally consider valid.
We do seem to agree on pretty much everyo ther point we discussed though, so i think im agreeable enough here.

This video is pretty terrible. They let this stuff go up on this site?

Thanatos2k:
No, Nintendo just region locks their consoles, which is just as bad. Even Microsoft doesn't do that.

That's true, I hadn't thought about that. Region locking is a pain in the ass, although it's a niche problem that most people don't care about.

Aardvaarkman:
That's exactly how disc based games work on the other consoles. they aren't tied to any accounts.

But how do downloaded Nintendo games work? Surely, they are tied to accounts, and can't be freely exchanged? I'm not really seeing any difference here. You're talking about a Microsoft plan that was never implemented (and that Sony never planned), not the reality of using these consoles.

Whatever generation you consider the Wii U to belong to, the 360 and PS3 are still on the market, so can't just be ignored. It's not like everybody who decides not to buy a Wii U is going to buy a PS4 or Xbone (and that's not even counting PCs or mobile).

That's how they work now. The person I was quoting was referring to the previous MS attempts at DRM which were confusing and the details of which changed on a day to day basis.

Aardvaarkman:
Huh? The PS3 and Xbox 360 have a huge library of fun games. Those are the consoles that the Wii U launched against. There was no PS4 or Xbone when it launched - and the Wii U's specs are more in one with those consoles. It really isn't playing in the PS4/Xbone territory.

I was obviously referring to the PS4 and Xbox One. When you say "the other consoles" it's a given that you mean the other ones from the same generation, not the old ones. The Wii U didn't launch against the PS3 or 360 any more than the 360 launched against the PS2. It had a one year head start in a 6-7 year cycle. The fact that the specs aren't as good has nothing to do with it, the Wii's were at least as far from the competition as the Wii U's. It's the console that Nintendo will be supporting in this generation, just like Sony and MS will be supporting the PS3 and 360.

Aardvaarkman:
I can agree with that. Nintendo is overwhelmingly a first-party console. The company has alienated most third-party developers, and these days it's basically impossible for one company to provide enough games to meet demand. Back in the day when gaming wasn't as big, Nintendo could produce enough compelling content to satisfy users. Today they can't do it without third-party help.

Nintendo has a long history of giving the finger to 3rd parties. They stuck with cartridges longer than the competition, which were expensive to make and they made the developers pay for it. They probably could survive by themselves if they really tried to though, their in-house games have been tremendously financially successful in the last generation, despite the console exclusivity. If the Wii U had a library of maybe 5-10 really strong Nintendo games, I'd probably get one. Still, it would be good if they would do more to get others on their side. The fact that the Wii U uses a more traditional controller though as well as outputting the same resolution as the competition might make it more viable for developers to release games on all 3 systems this time around. Unlike last time when a game was made for PS3/360 and then a seperate similar, much cheaper one with poor graphics and bad controls was made for the Wii. I just hope that the Watch Dogs delay doesn't set too much of a precedent.

Strazdas:

Thanatos2k:

As I said, go to Google. Type "vgchartz inaccurate" into the box. Click the search button, and you will find page after page after page of evidence on how vgchartz uses little more than guesswork to produce their numbers.

Ok, so i entertained your lack of any evidence and typed the google phrase. I got a lot of forum arguments (just like this, without any evidence), a few opinion articles and a bunch of dead links.
Oh, and i also found comprehensive arguments to the contrary.
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/82746/editorial-why-it-is-so-easy-to-blame-vgchartz/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/06/behind-the-flamewar-creator-of-vgchartz-speaks/

So i conclude that you have no evidence to support your claim for their inaccuracy and as such dismiss your claim.

Edit: also notice how every result that isnt some forum conversation is 4 years+ old. You know, a site like this can change A LOT in 4 years.

They haven't changed in the last 4 years. Fine, you want proof? Use vgchartz's own site.

http://www.vgchartz.com/methodology.php

You'll see their methodology is based on little more than guesswork.

There are two points they claim that they're doing that really aren't happening:

- Consulting with publishers and manufacturers to find out how many units they are introducing into the channel
- Polling retail partners to find out what games and hardware they are selling

Neither of these sources actually give them information. Publishers sure as hell aren't ever going to tell them, and retail stores are notoriously stingy about releasing such data. The NPD basically has to bribe them to do so. And hell, the NPD doesn't even get exact information for physical copies.

Then there's the fact that they have no method whatsoever for counting digital sales.

All this combines into the reality that vgchartz is nothing more than hopes and dreams. Estimates and guesses that are vaguely rooted in reality.

One thing vgchartz does do is when someone ELSE releases actual numbers, they secretly go back and updates theirs. Doesn't make them any more accurate.

C14N:

I was obviously referring to the PS4 and Xbox One. When you say "the other consoles" it's a given that you mean the other ones from the same generation, not the old ones.

Why is that a given?

A console competes against what else is on the market. "Generations" are irrelevant. The release of the PS4 and Xbone didn't make the PS3 and 360 suddenly stop existing. Those are still viable as "other consoles," and are still sold in the stores right alongside the Wii U.

I really don't see very many people considering a purchase of a Wii U against the PS4 or Xbone - the market for the Wii U is much more likely to be considering it against the PS3 and 360. The reality is that "generations" is just a construct of the industry that few consumers care about. People will buy what they like regardless of such arbitrary categories.

C14N:
The Wii U didn't launch against the PS3 or 360 any more than the 360 launched against the PS2.

But the 360 did release against the PS2. And the Wii did launch against the 360 and PS3. Those were the competition at launch, and still make up the major competition. Do you really think that when the Wii U launched, people were comparing it to the unreleased Sony and Microsoft consoles, rather than what was actually on the shelves?

C14N:
It's the console that Nintendo will be supporting in this generation, just like Sony and MS will be supporting the PS3 and 360.

If the case, then the Wii U seems pretty fucking doomed.

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

fine whatever you want, geez, you could try being more agreeable

i just said what i considered innovation in gaming because going by the dictionary definition nearly every game is innovative because its new at one point, which is clearly problematic

Im sorry for not being agreeable about using whatever definition we personally consider valid.
We do seem to agree on pretty much everyo ther point we discussed though, so i think im agreeable enough here.

im not asking you to agree with my definition, but you shouldnt say im wrong just because i dont use one definition that in my opinion is very problematic when applied to gaming

The thing against the Wii U is nintendo gained the untapped market of 60 year olds wanting to do zumba and wii fit with the original wii.

This self same new audience is precicely the type to NOT buy a new $$$ console in order to buy New wii U super fit standing on a plastic box zumba edition 2, they are happy not playing the original that is gathering dust under the cable box.

Thanatos2k:
They haven't changed in the last 4 years. Fine, you want proof? Use vgchartz's own site.

http://www.vgchartz.com/methodology.php

You'll see their methodology is based on little more than guesswork.

There are two points they claim that they're doing that really aren't happening:

- Consulting with publishers and manufacturers to find out how many units they are introducing into the channel
- Polling retail partners to find out what games and hardware they are selling

Neither of these sources actually give them information. Publishers sure as hell aren't ever going to tell them, and retail stores are notoriously stingy about releasing such data. The NPD basically has to bribe them to do so. And hell, the NPD doesn't even get exact information for physical copies.

Then there's the fact that they have no method whatsoever for counting digital sales.

All this combines into the reality that vgchartz is nothing more than hopes and dreams. Estimates and guesses that are vaguely rooted in reality.

One thing vgchartz does do is when someone ELSE releases actual numbers, they secretly go back and updates theirs. Doesn't make them any more accurate.

You have given me a link to their methodology, which is legit and was expanded on in the links i already posted, then went on to claim that it is false throwing claims of them lieing without actually providing any evidence
NPD use the same extrapolation method that VGChartz use. If VGC is incorrect, then so is NPD.

Nobody has a method for counting digital sales, because most digital sales shops (like steam) actually managed to abuse their right to not disclose those numbers to anyone, the game developers included.

They adjust their numbers to reflect the real life information, you know, something that every statistical institution in world worth anything does. how terrible that they want to be as accurate as they can!

So, in conclusion: you provided no evidence of them being inaccurate, called them liers (again with no proof) and provided no alternative method to see sales data. You also do not seem to understand how statistical extrapolation work and why it is acceptable.

Therefore, i will continue to use the most precise measurement we have until either you provide evidence to the contrary or more precise measurement starts being done.

NuclearKangaroo:

im not asking you to agree with my definition, but you shouldnt say im wrong just because i dont use one definition that in my opinion is very problematic when applied to gaming

If you are using incorrect definition then your results will be incorrect. You can disagree with the definition and make your case as to why, however so far i dont see your case here (you did mention some in previuos post that i didnt bother to respond to because i didnt consider it important, but if you like we can discuss the merits of alternative definition you propose).
That being said, the official definition is still official definition. Just like Piracy definition does not make any sense when applied to digital games, does not mean its definition is different for games though. Just that people incorrectly associate copyright infringement with piracy because some big names decided to use a scary word.

See, the problem with using definitions you find better is that anyone can do that and in the end we end up with 200 different definitions and just get confused. This is why we have a single agreed upon definition. Yes, it can be changed, but for that we need majority to start using it differently, and that is simply not the case with innovation.
An example of game everyone called innovative is Mirror's Edge. Yet it did not send any trends in gaming even if it was a financial success at the end.

Strazdas:

Thanatos2k:
They haven't changed in the last 4 years. Fine, you want proof? Use vgchartz's own site.

http://www.vgchartz.com/methodology.php

You'll see their methodology is based on little more than guesswork.

There are two points they claim that they're doing that really aren't happening:

- Consulting with publishers and manufacturers to find out how many units they are introducing into the channel
- Polling retail partners to find out what games and hardware they are selling

Neither of these sources actually give them information. Publishers sure as hell aren't ever going to tell them, and retail stores are notoriously stingy about releasing such data. The NPD basically has to bribe them to do so. And hell, the NPD doesn't even get exact information for physical copies.

Then there's the fact that they have no method whatsoever for counting digital sales.

All this combines into the reality that vgchartz is nothing more than hopes and dreams. Estimates and guesses that are vaguely rooted in reality.

One thing vgchartz does do is when someone ELSE releases actual numbers, they secretly go back and updates theirs. Doesn't make them any more accurate.

You have given me a link to their methodology, which is legit and was expanded on in the links i already posted, then went on to claim that it is false throwing claims of them lieing without actually providing any evidence
NPD use the same extrapolation method that VGChartz use. If VGC is incorrect, then so is NPD.

You're starting to get it. The NPD hasn't been accurate for years either.

Next thing you'll figure out is that TV ratings aren't actually based on the number of people who actually watched something, and TV networks have been scamming advertisers by lying to them about audience size for decades.

So, in conclusion: you provided no evidence of them being inaccurate, called them liers (again with no proof) and provided no alternative method to see sales data. You also do not seem to understand how statistical extrapolation work and why it is acceptable.

If you read the above link to their methodology and cannot understand how they aren't producing in any way shape or form an accurate number of actual games sold to actual people then you're beyond help. You will accept no evidence because you somehow process words into thoughts that are completely different than the meaning of the words.

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

im not asking you to agree with my definition, but you shouldnt say im wrong just because i dont use one definition that in my opinion is very problematic when applied to gaming

If you are using incorrect definition then your results will be incorrect. You can disagree with the definition and make your case as to why, however so far i dont see your case here (you did mention some in previuos post that i didnt bother to respond to because i didnt consider it important, but if you like we can discuss the merits of alternative definition you propose).
That being said, the official definition is still official definition. Just like Piracy definition does not make any sense when applied to digital games, does not mean its definition is different for games though. Just that people incorrectly associate copyright infringement with piracy because some big names decided to use a scary word.

See, the problem with using definitions you find better is that anyone can do that and in the end we end up with 200 different definitions and just get confused. This is why we have a single agreed upon definition. Yes, it can be changed, but for that we need majority to start using it differently, and that is simply not the case with innovation.
An example of game everyone called innovative is Mirror's Edge. Yet it did not send any trends in gaming even if it was a financial success at the end.

do whatever you want, every game in the world in innovative because at some point is new, you are right about everything, im done with this

captcha: once again, how appropiate

Thanatos2k:

You're starting to get it. The NPD hasn't been accurate for years either.

Next thing you'll figure out is that TV ratings aren't actually based on the number of people who actually watched something, and TV networks have been scamming advertisers by lying to them about audience size for decades.

If you read the above link to their methodology and cannot understand how they aren't producing in any way shape or form an accurate number of actual games sold to actual people then you're beyond help. You will accept no evidence because you somehow process words into thoughts that are completely different than the meaning of the words.

You confuse statistic method accuracity with factual knowledge.
By your logic, there is absolutely no statistic we have that is accurate. This is completely unworkable in real life however.
What we actually call accurate is the closest representative to accurate we can get. Statistical extrapolation is used almost everywhere and it is not some form of sign of inaccuracy.
You have read the methodology but fail to understand its meaning as you obviously do no know how statistics are made, which is why you make the mistake.
VGC is the most accurate measure of sales we got available, and to dismiss it outright is simply stupid. Knowing that the sales is around number X is better than not knowing anything at all.

NuclearKangaroo:

do whatever you want, every game in the world in innovative because at some point is new, you are right about everything, im done with this

In a sense, yes, most new games are innovative. with exception being those that do the same thing that has been done before. There are different levels of innovation however, having a new story is small innovation while having a new gameplay mechanic is large innovation.

Strazdas:

Thanatos2k:

You're starting to get it. The NPD hasn't been accurate for years either.

Next thing you'll figure out is that TV ratings aren't actually based on the number of people who actually watched something, and TV networks have been scamming advertisers by lying to them about audience size for decades.

If you read the above link to their methodology and cannot understand how they aren't producing in any way shape or form an accurate number of actual games sold to actual people then you're beyond help. You will accept no evidence because you somehow process words into thoughts that are completely different than the meaning of the words.

You confuse statistic method accuracity with factual knowledge.
By your logic, there is absolutely no statistic we have that is accurate. This is completely unworkable in real life however.
What we actually call accurate is the closest representative to accurate we can get. Statistical extrapolation is used almost everywhere and it is not some form of sign of inaccuracy.

Statistical extrapolation is madness for video games though in most cases. For example, people can like one game in a series then utterly despise the next (see: Final Fantasy). Assassin's Creed 4 sold millions less than Assassin's Creed 3, but the extrapolations would have told you otherwise. Same thing with games of the same genre. How much would Kingdoms of Amalur sell? It's sort of like Skyrim and Fable AND multiplatform, so surely it would sell those numbers, right? (Actually, vgchartz grossly underestimated KoA sales back when it came out)

Thing is, the margin of error is just too large and the examples where vgchartz is off the mark by massive amounts too numerous for it to be useful here. THAT is why vgchartz is inaccurate and not to be used by anyone in any credible argument. An Atlus employee famously once came out and said vgchartz hadn't been close to the actual sales of ANY of their games.

VGC is the most accurate measure of sales we got available, and to dismiss it outright is simply stupid. Knowing that the sales is around number X is better than not knowing anything at all.

No, that is false. Knowing something that is inaccurate can lead dumb people to draw bad conclusions. Saying "I don't know" is better than saying something with flawed data. Until a company releases numbers saying how much they sold, NO ONE knows how many copies any game sold anymore.

Thanatos2k:

Statistical extrapolation is madness for video games though in most cases. For example, people can like one game in a series then utterly despise the next (see: Final Fantasy). Assassin's Creed 4 sold millions less than Assassin's Creed 3, but the extrapolations would have told you otherwise. Same thing with games of the same genre. How much would Kingdoms of Amalur sell? It's sort of like Skyrim and Fable AND multiplatform, so surely it would sell those numbers, right? (Actually, vgchartz grossly underestimated KoA sales back when it came out)

Thing is, the margin of error is just too large and the examples where vgchartz is off the mark by massive amounts too numerous for it to be useful here. THAT is why vgchartz is inaccurate and not to be used by anyone in any credible argument. An Atlus employee famously once came out and said vgchartz hadn't been close to the actual sales of ANY of their games.

VGC is the most accurate measure of sales we got available, and to dismiss it outright is simply stupid. Knowing that the sales is around number X is better than not knowing anything at all.

No, that is false. Knowing something that is inaccurate can lead dumb people to draw bad conclusions. Saying "I don't know" is better than saying something with flawed data. Until a company releases numbers saying how much they sold, NO ONE knows how many copies any game sold anymore.

Sigh, i typed a reply and then my browser decided to randomly go to some website because apperently i pressed soem shortcut. ill try again.
----
It is quite clear that you do not know how statistics work.
Statistical extrapolation for sales is not madness. It is used by every statistical institution in the world. This is because exact data from all existing retailers is simply impossible.
Here is how it works: You take data from sources you have and then expand on it to fit all retailers (in this case). For example the methodology page shows that regions they have account for 70% of global sales. Then they extrapolate data from those countries to global using this assumption. As you already pointed out, if their assumtions are incorrect they adjust them as more data becomes available. However its worth noting that you should not mix the data publishers give with sales data. Publishers give data of items sold in their accouting sense. As in, wholesale sales. This however does not mean retail sales. all those items you see sitting on shelves, in storage and on the way - thats a discrepancy between the two. and if the game sells poorly but publisher printed many copies - thats going to be a large gap.
Statistical extrapolation has nothing to do with predicting sequel sales. Your example shows that you do not know what statistical extrapolation is as it has nothing to do with it.

An Atlus employee WOULDNT KNOW the actual sales of its games unless he did a specific investigation. that is because wholesale sales =/= retail sales. Thanks to NDA and secrecy in the industry most developers actually look at sites like VGC for data rather than get thier own. Weve seen developers that complain about Steam refusing to tell them how well their game sold even.

Also you keep talking about inaccuracies yet there are still no numerical examples or evidence from your side. For all i know you could be making it all up because you dislike the site.

And yes, knowing some data is better than knowing none. Otherwise you would still be living in a cave hunting animals with a rock.

Strazdas:

Thanatos2k:

Statistical extrapolation is madness for video games though in most cases. For example, people can like one game in a series then utterly despise the next (see: Final Fantasy). Assassin's Creed 4 sold millions less than Assassin's Creed 3, but the extrapolations would have told you otherwise. Same thing with games of the same genre. How much would Kingdoms of Amalur sell? It's sort of like Skyrim and Fable AND multiplatform, so surely it would sell those numbers, right? (Actually, vgchartz grossly underestimated KoA sales back when it came out)

Thing is, the margin of error is just too large and the examples where vgchartz is off the mark by massive amounts too numerous for it to be useful here. THAT is why vgchartz is inaccurate and not to be used by anyone in any credible argument. An Atlus employee famously once came out and said vgchartz hadn't been close to the actual sales of ANY of their games.

VGC is the most accurate measure of sales we got available, and to dismiss it outright is simply stupid. Knowing that the sales is around number X is better than not knowing anything at all.

No, that is false. Knowing something that is inaccurate can lead dumb people to draw bad conclusions. Saying "I don't know" is better than saying something with flawed data. Until a company releases numbers saying how much they sold, NO ONE knows how many copies any game sold anymore.

Sigh, i typed a reply and then my browser decided to randomly go to some website because apperently i pressed soem shortcut. ill try again.
----
It is quite clear that you do not know how statistics work.
Statistical extrapolation for sales is not madness. It is used by every statistical institution in the world. This is because exact data from all existing retailers is simply impossible.
Here is how it works: You take data from sources you have and then expand on it to fit all retailers (in this case). For example the methodology page shows that regions they have account for 70% of global sales. Then they extrapolate data from those countries to global using this assumption. As you already pointed out, if their assumtions are incorrect they adjust them as more data becomes available. However its worth noting that you should not mix the data publishers give with sales data. Publishers give data of items sold in their accouting sense. As in, wholesale sales. This however does not mean retail sales. all those items you see sitting on shelves, in storage and on the way - thats a discrepancy between the two. and if the game sells poorly but publisher printed many copies - thats going to be a large gap.
Statistical extrapolation has nothing to do with predicting sequel sales. Your example shows that you do not know what statistical extrapolation is as it has nothing to do with it.

An Atlus employee WOULDNT KNOW the actual sales of its games unless he did a specific investigation. that is because wholesale sales =/= retail sales. Thanks to NDA and secrecy in the industry most developers actually look at sites like VGC for data rather than get thier own. Weve seen developers that complain about Steam refusing to tell them how well their game sold even.

Also you keep talking about inaccuracies yet there are still no numerical examples or evidence from your side. For all i know you could be making it all up because you dislike the site.

And yes, knowing some data is better than knowing none. Otherwise you would still be living in a cave hunting animals with a rock.

You can say anything you want about the theory, but there's a reason why they're theories. The fact of the matter is vgchartz's method of statistical estimation DOES NOT PRODUCE RESULTS IN LINE WITH REALITY. It happens over and over and over and over and over again. Is it because their methods are flawed? Is it because their implementation of the methods are flawed? It doesn't matter, that's their problem to deal with. All we care is do they produce accurate results and the answer is no.

So any sane person would conclude that vgchartz is therefore not to be trusted.

And yes, an Atlus employee is the only one who can produce an accurate count of sales, because they have all the data. You kidding?

Digital distribution however is different. Digital distribution sales figures can be obscured depending on which company you're talking about. Some companies don't share the numbers. Some companies share the numbers with developers but prohibit them from sharing those numbers with anyone else. It's different across the board on a case by case basis.

But vgchartz (or the NPD) doesn't count digital sales, cannot count digital sales, and never has. So that's irrelevant to this discussion. The Atlus employee was talking about physical hard copies, and the statement was made before console game digital distribution was even a thing.

Thanatos2k:

You can say anything you want about the theory, but there's a reason why they're theories. The fact of the matter is vgchartz's method of statistical estimation DOES NOT PRODUCE RESULTS IN LINE WITH REALITY. It happens over and over and over and over and over again. Is it because their methods are flawed? Is it because their implementation of the methods are flawed? It doesn't matter, that's their problem to deal with. All we care is do they produce accurate results and the answer is no.

So any sane person would conclude that vgchartz is therefore not to be trusted.

And yes, an Atlus employee is the only one who can produce an accurate count of sales, because they have all the data. You kidding?

Digital distribution however is different. Digital distribution sales figures can be obscured depending on which company you're talking about. Some companies don't share the numbers. Some companies share the numbers with developers but prohibit them from sharing those numbers with anyone else. It's different across the board on a case by case basis.

But vgchartz (or the NPD) doesn't count digital sales, cannot count digital sales, and never has. So that's irrelevant to this discussion. The Atlus employee was talking about physical hard copies, and the statement was made before console game digital distribution was even a thing.

Please dont be that guy that doesnt know what a theory is

Statistical estimation produce results that are close to reality with a quite large significance level. That is acceptable in all statistican fields.
f you conclude that this is enough not to trust them, then you cannot trust ANY statistical information, which means were going back to dark ages. Sorry, but id rather have knowledge. What you are doing is applying double standarts for site you dont like and hiding it under not trusting their method when you have shown you dont even know how that method works.

Atluns employee has very little chance of knowing accurate count of sales. For one, he would need to be a person responsible for collecting sale data and not every employee is responsible for that. For two, please read again my explanation why wholesale and retail sales are different. Atlus (and other publisher) count wholesale sales. What is actually important to us is Retail sales.

I was not talking about digital distribution at all. So you responding like i was i have to assume you do not know what wholesale is. You could read up on it, though judging by how well you read VGC methodology i dont expect that.

Lack of digital sale measures is indeed a problem, but as you said noone counts them and many publishers themselves dont know them, so expecting some third party to count them is a bit too much.

to reiterate, you have shown repeated lack of knowledge on the subject, appear to not even fully udnerstand what i am talking about and have shown me no evidence of VGC data being invalid.

Please don't be that guy who nitpicks words instead of addresses points. We already had that guy. Stop insulting my intelligence, I know what theorems and wholesale are.

You can trot out all the justification of statistical estimation to your heart's content, but it doesn't matter if THE RESULTS ARE INCORRECT.

Atlus employees have no chance of knowing sales? Stop making crap up. Even if they weren't the person who collects sales data, stuff like that is communicated internally. I work at one of the big internet companies and I could tell you our unique daily page views despite not working anywhere on the front end or collecting such statistics. An Atlus employee would be likely to know BOTH retail and wholesale sales, because collecting both numbers is sort of important to developers.

To reiterate the point you keep desperately avoiding - vgchartz is inaccurate more often than it is accurate, and the frequency and magnitude of those inaccuracies prove it is not to be trusted. Regardless of their methodology, regardless of your statistical theories - they produce bad numbers, and no one should be using their bad numbers to make sales arguments.

Aardvaarkman:

C14N:

I was obviously referring to the PS4 and Xbox One. When you say "the other consoles" it's a given that you mean the other ones from the same generation, not the old ones.

Why is that a given?

A console competes against what else is on the market. "Generations" are irrelevant. The release of the PS4 and Xbone didn't make the PS3 and 360 suddenly stop existing. Those are still viable as "other consoles," and are still sold in the stores right alongside the Wii U.

I really don't see very many people considering a purchase of a Wii U against the PS4 or Xbone - the market for the Wii U is much more likely to be considering it against the PS3 and 360. The reality is that "generations" is just a construct of the industry that few consumers care about. People will buy what they like regardless of such arbitrary categories.

No it isn't, every time I've seen the Wii U brought up (which admittedly isn't that often) it's somebody comparing it to the PS4 and the Xbox One, usually complaining that it's getting so little attention. They briefly shared shelf space but that's it; the reasons for buying each one is completely different. Somebody buying a Wii U in 2013 was buying something they planned to use for the next few years, expecting the currently empty library to be filled over time. Somebody buying a PS3 or 360 was grabbing a console they never bothered with all this time so they could catch up on the nearly complete library of games they missed at a fairly low price. Nobody was buying those thinking "I'll get a few years of use out of this". And at the 2014 shopping season (as well as in 2015, 2016 and so on), people will be deciding between Wii U, PS4 and XBO; not between Wii U, PS3 and 360, at least as long as it isn't a Dreamcast-like flop.

They don't technically "stop existing" in that there is still stock in the shops to be sold but they sort of do. They're going to stop manufacturing them in the next few months and within about a year the development pool generally starts to dry up after a short transition period where games are released on both generations. They're at the end of their lives now and pretty much anybody who picks one up now is fully aware of that.

The fact that the generations are constructed by the industry is irrelevant because they still completely exist and heavily influence media coverage and what people buy. The sales of both the PS3 and the 360 dipped strongly in 2013 which was completely due to those "arbitrary categories"

Aardvaarkman:

C14N:
The Wii U didn't launch against the PS3 or 360 any more than the 360 launched against the PS2.

But the 360 did release against the PS2. And the Wii did launch against the 360 and PS3. Those were the competition at launch, and still make up the major competition. Do you really think that when the Wii U launched, people were comparing it to the unreleased Sony and Microsoft consoles, rather than what was actually on the shelves?

It wasn't "against" the PS2. The PS2 was the undisputed winner of it's time. It was still around at the time of the 360 launch but it was not competition for the 360. The kind of people who bought a 360 in that year mostly already owned a PS2 or at least an Xbox and they wanted something that would be around after those consoles were done. It's just a case of one manufacturer gets their product to ship a few months before the competition.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here