|
Home > Archive > Nintendo gamecube > March 2005 > Re: Revolution controller: No Buttons, No Sticks, All Touch Screen
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Revolution controller: No Buttons, No Sticks, All Touch Screen
|
|
| Leon Dexter 2005-03-30, 6:35 pm |
| "Michael Cargill" <mikementalist@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
quote:
> With the PS2 trouncing the GC so much in sales, I think that it is fair to
> say that there are more people wanting to play PS2 games than there are
> people wanting to play Nintendo games. With so few games released on the
GC
quote:
> as a whole, it is easy for some GC games to sell well as their is less
> competition. On the PS2, you have got people purchasing a far greater
> library of games. More games get sold on the PS2, but these sales are
> spread out amongst a greater number of titles.
Of course there are more people playing PS2 games--there are 5 times as many
PS2s sold. But I seriously doubt that the average PS2 owner's library is
any larger than the average GC owner's. I'm not sure, though. You'd have
to find out total software sales for each system.
quote:
> This isn't about being 'fair', this is about facts. Critical acclaim and
> review scores is all down to personal opinion. 'Best' is not universal
and
quote:
> it cannot be universal, it is all down to opinion. Whilst you personally
> can claim that Nintendo are the best developer, that does not make it a
> fact. If it was a fact then no-one would be able to disagree with it.
You're re-wording the same arguement, and so am I. Let me try once more: if
any videogame company in the world is going to claim to be "best", Nintendo
is the only one with data to back it up in any way. Nobody else can claim
the simple numbers in sales and critical acclaim that Nintendo can. Would
that make you happy?
quote:
> Minority opinion? Are you sure? With the lower sales of the GC compared
to
quote:
> the PS2, I would say it is the Nintendo fans who are in the minority. On
> the PS2 you have a greater number of people buying a huge selection of
> games, whereas on the GC you have a far smaller number of people buying a
> smaller selection of games.
Yes, I'm sure. Nintendo sells more games than anyone else. How else are
you going to determine the size of their fan base? Nintendo fans are only a
"minority" if you count them against "everyone else". That's true of every
other game company as well. You're thinking in terms of PS2 vs. Gamecube,
when you need to be thinking Nintendo vs. Microsoft vs. Sony vs. Konami vs.
EA...
People don't buy PS2's to play Sony games, they buy them for a lot of
reasons. But owning a Nintendo system for Nintendo's games is very common.
quote:
> In an election, one person being the winner does not mean that they are
> actually the best person to lead to the country. How many times have you
> looked at poll in a magazine or website for the top ten games as voted for
> by readers and then totally disagreed with it? Who is in the minority in
> cases like this, and who is wrong?
>
> When the Spice Girls where number one, did that mean they were the best?
Among the people buying records that week, and out of the albums being sold,
sure. That's not the same thing by a long shot. Ask me about total album
sales, and you'll be a lot closer. Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, the
Eagles, Garth Brooks, etc are the top-selling artists. And I'm sure if you
did a poll of "Best Artist or Group", they'd be at the top. It's not hard
to understand. You sure have a tough time grasping this.
quote:
> You have only defined YOUR thoughts on what makes something the best. You
> are basically saying that you define what is best based on what other
people
quote:
> think of something.
Not "other people", everyone. Or at least everyone who cares. You are
defining "best" as just your opinion. You STILL won't acknowledge that
counting everyone's opinion means squat. That's pretty arrogant.
quote:
>
> You cannot define what makes something the best, because it is purely down
> to individual opinion.
You are completely stuck on this. I'm not talking about individual opinion,
I'm talking about collective consensus. Will you please admit there even IS
such a thing? My god.
quote:
> You have not been counting everyones opinion at all, only those that you
> think are in the majority. The majority is certainly not all, and you are
> only going with it because in this particular instance it is conveniently
> supporting what you believe.
Oh, give me a break. I'm counting everyone to get the majority in the first
place. You can't have a majority without counting everyone. Now you're
really grasping.
|
| |
|
|