Moreover, if one person did this, it would be seen as a completely reasonable application of the game, but because lots of people are doing it it's seen as pathetic. It's often a natural tendency for people to engage in 'anti-hype' so to speak when things become en masse. In reality, this is just multiple instances of otherwise well respected gaming behaviour, and that's ignoring your salient point.
1) Get off your high horse. Such disdainful condescension merely conveys an almost poisonous level of insecurity. Generalizations tend to come full circle...
2) Businesses need to make money. Call it a 'cashgrab' if you want, but if they make something that makes them a lot of money in fair business (which lots of people want to buy), then it's fair game and hardly worthy of such flippant categorization.
3) Nintendo haven't left the console market AT ALL. In the interim between their home consoles and while they work away at the inevitable NX, a game for mobile devices was released to appeal to those who regularly use apps on their phones and it took off like wildfire. Why this should upset you so dearly for you to suggest that Nintendo's only success should come from the hardware related content is anyone's guess. Pokémon GO is ONE game released in a medium you aren't excited about, amidst CLEAR plans for huge new hardware gaming incentives in 2017 and beyond.
If Pokemon GO / the mini NES wasn't successful, you would probably deem it a waste of resources. Now it IS successful, you appear to deem it a signal for a disastrous change in direction. So, Nintendo are in a catch 22 situation where they aren't allowed to do anything other than make modern hardware centric gaming experiences, for fear of being wasteful or wrongly aligned. What a wonderfully cynical and malformed judgement.
Exactly - 'Probably'. There's no way to truly tell if some of the problems were realistically foreseeable, though there's every chance they were, so you may well be right.
The complexity and nuance of the technology behind these sorts of things has almost certainly expanded faster than our capacity to fully understand and control it, which would explain why there is a vast difference in the variety and number of issues between things like this now and 25 years ago. There were glitches in old games but almost never game breaking for regular gamers. Things seem to be in a more precarious and ambitious territory generally now, and the balance between conforming to release dates and how much risk to associate with the content and the inclusion of updates/DLC to correct it all hangs in the balance. If you CAN update something then you can afford to use that and lower the risk and such I imagine, but I'm sure it's a very involved process. In an ideal world we would have no delays and good quality products but it seems to be a very fine art now.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Answering the question in such a flippant manner contributes nothing and can only really be interpreted as negative. 'No' is synonymous with 'negative' after all.
This was in response to post 35. The deletion of the comment is another matter.
@Kirk You seem to be for the most part equating the visual appeal of a game with things like the absolute amount of detail and polygon count. This just seems breathtakingly (...) naive and simplistic regarding visual stimuli. You also seem to infuse it with your evident opinion that this game doesn't look amazing, which is rather hypocritical. Your statements of 'fact' are far more absolutist than the author was at any point and don't have much merit being taken as truth.
The Author described it as 'one of the best looking games this generation'. A lot of people actually agree with this. He didn't say it had the highest level of intricate detail or the most advanced levels of polygon concentration / arrangement, or the most realistic visuals. By such (or any) arbitrary technical standards of course you can point to 'better' looking games. But that isn't what this is or should be about. It's like suggesting that the best sounding music has to be a very complex, technical arrangement. The same principle applies to ANY art. These qualities can have strong value, but their monopoly is unwelcome.
'Best looking' means so much more than what you think. People are smitten with the art style and how the graphics WORK on an artistic level. I think this game has a brilliant balance between simplistic cartoonism and detailed realism, and the watercolour aesthetic is wonderful. As such I believe this IS one of the best looking games this generation, a sentiment merely reflected by public opinion rather than legally binding documentation.
Which leads me on to your overall overreaction: The fact that the author appeared to state a subjective opinion as an absolute fact. In this piece, and any like it, it is CLEAR that the writing is the opinion of the writer. You don't require 'in my opinion' or 'I think' at the start of every point. If anything that would make it seem less professional and wishy washy. As I alluded earlier, instead of recognizing this and perhaps simply disagreeing with the sentiments, you did exactly the same thing but while the author has allowed the obvious context of his article to provide interpretation, you went one step further and explicitly outlined yours as 'truth' claims in a manner that surely you would otherwise condemn.
So basically what ricklongo said but with more pretentious clarification.
Comments 62
Re: Pokémon GO Finally Arrives In Japan
@3MonthBeef
They probably feel like they've already maximized the irony via the Olympic Games.
Re: Video: This Is What The Next Generation Of Pokémon GO Could Look Like
Ah, 'gimmick', such a strangely used word.
Re: Video: Watch Pokémon GO Mania Unfold In New York City
@Xaldin
Precisely.
Moreover, if one person did this, it would be seen as a completely reasonable application of the game, but because lots of people are doing it it's seen as pathetic. It's often a natural tendency for people to engage in 'anti-hype' so to speak when things become en masse. In reality, this is just multiple instances of otherwise well respected gaming behaviour, and that's ignoring your salient point.
Re: Video: Watch Pokémon GO Mania Unfold In New York City
There seem to be a lot of people who's cynicism is enough to block any possible appreciation for the interest or excitement in others.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that can make this many people run around a National park with a smile on their face is magnificent.
Re: Nintendo Share Value Hits Highest Point in Over 5 Years and Breaks Volume Record
@hepgius
1) Get off your high horse. Such disdainful condescension merely conveys an almost poisonous level of insecurity. Generalizations tend to come full circle...
2) Businesses need to make money. Call it a 'cashgrab' if you want, but if they make something that makes them a lot of money in fair business (which lots of people want to buy), then it's fair game and hardly worthy of such flippant categorization.
3) Nintendo haven't left the console market AT ALL. In the interim between their home consoles and while they work away at the inevitable NX, a game for mobile devices was released to appeal to those who regularly use apps on their phones and it took off like wildfire. Why this should upset you so dearly for you to suggest that Nintendo's only success should come from the hardware related content is anyone's guess. Pokémon GO is ONE game released in a medium you aren't excited about, amidst CLEAR plans for huge new hardware gaming incentives in 2017 and beyond.
If Pokemon GO / the mini NES wasn't successful, you would probably deem it a waste of resources. Now it IS successful, you appear to deem it a signal for a disastrous change in direction. So, Nintendo are in a catch 22 situation where they aren't allowed to do anything other than make modern hardware centric gaming experiences, for fear of being wasteful or wrongly aligned. What a wonderfully cynical and malformed judgement.
Re: Someone Has Finally Cracked The Sega Saturn's DRM, Can Load Games Via USB
@pabloff9
Agreed. Even the single player was the best I've played.
Re: Pokémon GO Plus Wearable Already Selling For Over $100, Despite Not Being Released Yet
@SLIGEACH_EIRE
Mate, I think someone has hacked your account and written more than 10 words.
Re: Pokémon GO Global Rollout Delayed While Niantic Fixes Server Woes
@Kirk
Exactly - 'Probably'. There's no way to truly tell if some of the problems were realistically foreseeable, though there's every chance they were, so you may well be right.
The complexity and nuance of the technology behind these sorts of things has almost certainly expanded faster than our capacity to fully understand and control it, which would explain why there is a vast difference in the variety and number of issues between things like this now and 25 years ago. There were glitches in old games but almost never game breaking for regular gamers. Things seem to be in a more precarious and ambitious territory generally now, and the balance between conforming to release dates and how much risk to associate with the content and the inclusion of updates/DLC to correct it all hangs in the balance. If you CAN update something then you can afford to use that and lower the risk and such I imagine, but I'm sure it's a very involved process. In an ideal world we would have no delays and good quality products but it seems to be a very fine art now.
Re: Pokémon GO Now Competing With Twitter In Terms Of Daily Active Users
@SLIGEACH_EIRE
Ha! Looks like a reflex to me...
Re: Pokémon GO Now Competing With Twitter In Terms Of Daily Active Users
@SLIGEACH_EIRE
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Answering the question in such a flippant manner contributes nothing and can only really be interpreted as negative. 'No' is synonymous with 'negative' after all.
This was in response to post 35. The deletion of the comment is another matter.
Re: Hands On: Embracing Freedom in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@Kirk I just completely disagree with your whole premise. Everything you just said was directly addressed by my comment. I needn't reiterate.
Re: Hands On: Embracing Freedom in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@Kirk You seem to be for the most part equating the visual appeal of a game with things like the absolute amount of detail and polygon count. This just seems breathtakingly (...) naive and simplistic regarding visual stimuli. You also seem to infuse it with your evident opinion that this game doesn't look amazing, which is rather hypocritical. Your statements of 'fact' are far more absolutist than the author was at any point and don't have much merit being taken as truth.
The Author described it as 'one of the best looking games this generation'. A lot of people actually agree with this. He didn't say it had the highest level of intricate detail or the most advanced levels of polygon concentration / arrangement, or the most realistic visuals. By such (or any) arbitrary technical standards of course you can point to 'better' looking games. But that isn't what this is or should be about. It's like suggesting that the best sounding music has to be a very complex, technical arrangement. The same principle applies to ANY art. These qualities can have strong value, but their monopoly is unwelcome.
'Best looking' means so much more than what you think. People are smitten with the art style and how the graphics WORK on an artistic level. I think this game has a brilliant balance between simplistic cartoonism and detailed realism, and the watercolour aesthetic is wonderful. As such I believe this IS one of the best looking games this generation, a sentiment merely reflected by public opinion rather than legally binding documentation.
Which leads me on to your overall overreaction: The fact that the author appeared to state a subjective opinion as an absolute fact. In this piece, and any like it, it is CLEAR that the writing is the opinion of the writer. You don't require 'in my opinion' or 'I think' at the start of every point. If anything that would make it seem less professional and wishy washy. As I alluded earlier, instead of recognizing this and perhaps simply disagreeing with the sentiments, you did exactly the same thing but while the author has allowed the obvious context of his article to provide interpretation, you went one step further and explicitly outlined yours as 'truth' claims in a manner that surely you would otherwise condemn.
So basically what ricklongo said but with more pretentious clarification.