No, I disagree, I think it's incredibly powerful to say "I personally find quality in this". You can only be so objective with art, which is what makes comparative discussions so banal. The only respectable opinions can be direct experiences - otherwise we're comparing... sales numbers or graphic quality.
But then yes, it becomes a subjective discussion of "I liked it" vs "I did not". And honestly, like the OP noted, I find positive opinions usually ring truer than negative opinions. At least concerning media.
So...you're saying that "I personally enjoyed it" is a completely relevant statement in arguing that something is
revolutionary. And that positive opinions are more relevant than negative opinions, so your enjoyment is more relevant than my lack of enjoyment.
Well isn't that wonderfully convenient.
I'm not arguing about how
good the Wii is here. As far as I'm concerned, trying to discern any sort of objective "good" or "bad" with a console is useless. You argued that the console was revolutionary because of how much enjoyment you got out of it. "Revolutionary" cannot be entirely backed up by enjoyment, otherwise everything somebody enjoyed would be "revolutionary." To be revolutionary, something has to do something new, which the Wii has.
And I agree that the Wii is revolutionary, just not because your family played it a lot. It's revolutionary because it pulled so many non-gamers to the console, and because it introduced successful, widespread, fully-functional motion sensor for the first time on a console. It's revolutionary because it sparked so many copycats and people trying to bank on what it accomplished.
How much you enjoyed it has nothing to do with it. People have been enjoying video games -- and yes, families enjoyed them too -- since their inception. Revolutions
change something, radically. Your enjoyment doesn't
change anything. The wider enjoyment of video games by the non-gamers did. The motion sensor did.
Even with examples like Justin Beiber or One Direction, there is quality in these works. People put effort and time into these things, and it's only inevitable that there is going to be a degree of success. Usually I find dissenters saying "there is better", and surely there is, but this doesn't deprive Beiber from the quality that IS in his work.
Okay...? I'm trying to figure out why you're saying this at all, it's kind of a non sequitur. I said that "I enjoy it" is not a convincing argument, by saying that other people liking those musical artists does not change my opinion. You followed that by saying that there is quality there...?
Besides, even if I don't get enjoyment of their music, I don't deny that there's
something there. Music is one of the most subjective forms of entertainment there is, in my opinion, so that's the last thing I'm going to actually argue. But I don't see how this is relevant to the debate at hand.
What I mean to say is the Wii is fun because of how different it is.
Then talk about how different it is, not how fun it is.
With the way time works in a linear fashion, I don't think it's crazy to say that newer things are probably going to be better than older things. Most things improve with time.
Mario I think is one of the best examples of this. Nintendo's takes really good care of the franchise and is constantly refining and rehashing. So yes, it came out second so it's better. Nintendo actively tries to make it that way.
Sega is an example of how to fumble with these type of opportunities.
Better graphics, refined gameplay, refined characters story, etc etc.
Both are brilliant. And honestly, my personal preference is Sunshine. But it's the "better" game. If we were to ask Nintendo, they would say the same I think.
That's an absolutely terrible argument, though. Logically, yes, the newer something is, the better it should be, but that doesn't take a lot of factors into account. Graphics and audio will almost certainly improve with time, but gameplay is something that is an absolute variable, and gameplay is often considered one of the -- if not the most -- important factors in a video game. Theoretically, companies can work off of experience and improve gameplay, but the game designers are human, so mistakes happen, and sometimes attempts to improve gameplay make them worse.
"Sega is an example of how to fumble" is a completely unfair way to analyze my argument. Sonic is simply one of the most widely accepted examples of where newer games have gotten worse, and I know if I pull up other examples you're going to pull the same thing with Galaxy and argue that it is actually "better."
You can look at arguments with the Zelda series, though. Right in this thread, you've got plenty of people arguing that Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess were not better than their predecessors. Plenty of people harp on Final Fantasy 7, but plenty of titles have been released since. Other M is widely disliked among fans of the Metroid series.
If you look anywhere and go ask people, the overwhelming majority is not going to tell you that the newest release is the best, for a lot of reasons. Unless a company releases an absolute carbon copy of the previous release, then there's obviously going to be change, and change can either be good or bad.
Yes, Galaxy has better graphics and audio, but I think the innovation involved in the FLUDD gameplay really sets it apart from the other Marios, and that's probably the main reason I'd give to argue that it could be better. I'm not going to say that it is, because as I've said, I don't really care to argue for objective "bests" in any sort of media or art because I don't think objective bests really exist, but I'm certainly not going to consent that Galaxy is "better" than Sunshine either. Of course Nintendo's going to say it's better; it sold better by about 4 million, and of course a company wants people to think that they are improving as they go along, because
theoretically, they should be. But I don't think Nintendo's opinion is at all relevant, because as a company who serves to profit off of said opinion, their opinion really isn't that trustworthy.
Honestly, I think you're not the audience (as much as Nintendo tried to tell you you were, LOL).
I'm well aware that I wasn't the audience, which is likely
why I don't enjoy it. I'm still entitled to have my issues with the console; there were still games on the Wii that were aimed at me. There's a reason I'm not sitting here criticizing the Wii ___ series.
Good, I meant to be offensive.
I really do think there has grown a division. There is the hardcore, that sit and compare a game to other experiences, as they have a long relationship with games from there youth. And then there is the casual, that sit and just
play, untainted and blessed with little to compare their experiences to. They just have a good time.
I feel like the hardcore have lost that type of approach.
I completely disagree. Everybody plays games to enjoy them, hardcore or casual. Just because hardcore gamers have experiences to compare them to doesn't mean they can't enjoy them. I wouldn't be playing video games if I didn't enjoy them, so yeah, I definitely resent you saying that casual gamers can actually enjoy games while hardcore gamers spend all of their time analyzing it.
Granted, I'm not sure how "hardcore" I even am anymore, as ever since I got to college I've been playing games less and less, and I don't really keep up with new games anymore because I have too many to play already. But once upon a time I certainly was, and just because I have the context in my experiences to say "I like this game better" or "this isn't as good as the last one" doesn't mean that I'm not able to sit down and enjoy them. I can recognize that Mirror's Edge is a short game with a lot of flaws, but I still love and replay it to death (well, okay, I'm still willing to; I haven't actually replayed it in some time). I recognize that the difficulty in Skyrim is extremely lacking (especially on PC, thanks to quicksaving), but I still frequently boot it up just to play and enjoy anyway.
The whole problem in the first place is this bloody divide between "casuals" and "hardcores" anyway. I remember back in '08 when I was really bitter about the Wii and all, and I absolutely hated the idea of casual gamers. And that's ridiculous. You can't generalize people into groups like that. Basically, the creation of those two groups only serves for people to create this opposing group that takes games too seriously and blame them as the problem, or create this group of people that don't take games seriously enough and blame them as the problem. It's stupid and accomplishes absolutely nothing, aside from creating yet another reason for people to hate each other, and I really don't think we need that.
