I've decided I'll start trying to do Devil's Advocate threads. Basically I'll take a popular issue (video game related, if you request abortion or religion I will slap you with a raw salmon) and debate the "unpopular" side of it. By "unpopular" I mean "whatever people here don't like". So yeah, I'm trolling. That was a joke.
Disclaimer: What I may say may not be my point of view. I am purely making the argument for sake of intelligent debate.
Anyway, the 3DS was finally made into a public extravaganza in E3. It was showed up, games were announced, trailers were made, and Miyamoto made probably the best face at the Kinect booth. It was met with great reception from fans and critics alike. Mostly the fans. With people hunting through their couch cushions for those few extra cents to save up for the 3DS, many people failed to realize that the 3DS may not be what we all think it's cracked up to be.
On paper the 3DS looks great. Awesome graphics, 3D without glasses, an analog stick, touch controls, and a whole lot of other stuff. But yet again, most things look great on paper. I'll use the game COP: The Recruit as an example. COP has...
- A 3D open world that runs at smooth framerates.
- A variety of side quests and tasks to do
- Shoot guns, drive cars, and do many other things in a variety of missions
- Touch based side tasks and integrated PDA usage with the touch screen.
In real life, if you played the game, you'll see...
- Broken physics and clunky car controls
- Horrific difficulty curve
- Repetitive missions
- Boring story
- Jumbled and overcomplicated PDA
- Useless touchscreen usage at times
Yeah, COP was terrible. But until we played it, we all thought it was promising. Which brings us to he next point: How can you judge accurately?
But first, if we're talking about games I also should bring up the 3DS announced library of games. Side note, if this section seems out of place it is, I typed the whole thing then realized I needed this so I threw it in there. The edit though was just to add this note about this section though. Anyway, the library does look impressive. Both lots of fun casual games and fun hardcore games. But that being said, just because something is announced doesn't mean it's an instant win. Like I said in COP, looks on paper can be deceiving. And we still don't have a lot of proper info. Trailers are, as we know, gussied up to look good. It takes the best parts of a game and sticks them into a small minute-long trailer. For all we know there can be 30 seconds of awesomeness in a game but hours of shit. Like Kid Icarus showed off some impressive looking stuff in its 3DS trailer, but a lot of it was animated video and the gameplay parts were still a little misleading. Trailers also don't show controls schemes often, let alone if they work, and they also don't show the low points of the game. Resident Evil Revelations didn't even have gameplay. It was simply a video you could fiddle around with. Metal Gear Solid: The Naked Sample, as much as I hate to say it, was just a pretty looking tech demo. Most things are simply tech demos. Some stuff didn't even get that far and just got screenies, which show even less. A picture means a thousand words but it also means at least a hundred questions. And a good amount of games didn't even get screenies but were simply announced. Nothing more, nothing less. And if you look for 3DS games that were announced with extensive info you'll find that list very, very small.
I doubt any of you went to E3. I doubt any of you even got within 10 ft of a 3DS. But we're all making assumptions it's great based on game trailers, what games are coming to the 3DS, and nothing more but either controlled released footage by Nintendo of the 3DS or leaked cam footage that, if anything, indefinite. Critic impressions are there but critic impressions are also just as positive or negative as their bank accounts are and the deposits they get from big business video game companies. There's also of course the novelty factor. Get any new gizmo that isn't a hunk of shit and you'll think it's awesome. But given a few weeks the novelty wears off and you really have to see the device for what it really is. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge it until you have had it in your hands for a fair amount of time and if you can judge it with an unbiased mind.
The 3DS also, at this point, lacks competition. There's nothing to compare it to. There's no PSP2 yet and the only other thing is probably the iPhone 4, but that's still borderline between a personal media device and a video game console. So it'll look amazing since it has no competition. If I make a machine that there's no market competition for then it'll look awesome since it doesn't have a comparison. Comparing the 3DS to anything at this point is like comparing the PS3 and the PS2 and seeing which one has better tech.
Speaking of the PSP2, who knows how that'll be? First off, don't say the PSP was a bad system. It wasn't. It had good games, good functionality, and it was an overall satisfying console in general and a worthy product for Sony to have in the handheld market. I'd say the DS is better myself but the PSP definitely had an edge over the DS in terms of graphics, functionality, and that analog nub made a huge difference. The PSP2 for all we know could bring a lot to the table. 3DS graphics look good but what is Sony tops them? That'll be amazing looking. What if the PSP2 gets a great starting library. I mean Sony does have a largely impressive library at its fingers, putting some of their big ones onto the PSP2 development schedule can really turn the tide. And what if it brings another analog stick or nub? That's dual analog and it's been a standard for consoles for a bit now (and it works well too). Maybe it'll have a touchscreen too. Oh, and going off on a small rant here, pointing fingers and calling companies copycats is worthless. If you make a good product it doesn't matter what it rips off of. And most anything can be called a "copycat product" or "ripoff" since popular ideas make money, and things that make money become trends in the market, and trends in the market are implemented into products in that market. But anyway, we don't know how to stack the 3DS up yet until we have a litmus test.
All in all, the 3DS should not be judged quickly and branded as fantastic. Until we have proper competition to compare it with and a more clear impression if it, we can't be stacking it up already.
Now, that's my devil's advocate viewpoint. Prove me wrong! Really, please do, good arguments that are actually fun to debate are hard to come by. Be logical, be kind, be respectful, and we can all have a great debate
Disclaimer: What I may say may not be my point of view. I am purely making the argument for sake of intelligent debate.
Anyway, the 3DS was finally made into a public extravaganza in E3. It was showed up, games were announced, trailers were made, and Miyamoto made probably the best face at the Kinect booth. It was met with great reception from fans and critics alike. Mostly the fans. With people hunting through their couch cushions for those few extra cents to save up for the 3DS, many people failed to realize that the 3DS may not be what we all think it's cracked up to be.
On paper the 3DS looks great. Awesome graphics, 3D without glasses, an analog stick, touch controls, and a whole lot of other stuff. But yet again, most things look great on paper. I'll use the game COP: The Recruit as an example. COP has...
- A 3D open world that runs at smooth framerates.
- A variety of side quests and tasks to do
- Shoot guns, drive cars, and do many other things in a variety of missions
- Touch based side tasks and integrated PDA usage with the touch screen.
In real life, if you played the game, you'll see...
- Broken physics and clunky car controls
- Horrific difficulty curve
- Repetitive missions
- Boring story
- Jumbled and overcomplicated PDA
- Useless touchscreen usage at times
Yeah, COP was terrible. But until we played it, we all thought it was promising. Which brings us to he next point: How can you judge accurately?
But first, if we're talking about games I also should bring up the 3DS announced library of games. Side note, if this section seems out of place it is, I typed the whole thing then realized I needed this so I threw it in there. The edit though was just to add this note about this section though. Anyway, the library does look impressive. Both lots of fun casual games and fun hardcore games. But that being said, just because something is announced doesn't mean it's an instant win. Like I said in COP, looks on paper can be deceiving. And we still don't have a lot of proper info. Trailers are, as we know, gussied up to look good. It takes the best parts of a game and sticks them into a small minute-long trailer. For all we know there can be 30 seconds of awesomeness in a game but hours of shit. Like Kid Icarus showed off some impressive looking stuff in its 3DS trailer, but a lot of it was animated video and the gameplay parts were still a little misleading. Trailers also don't show controls schemes often, let alone if they work, and they also don't show the low points of the game. Resident Evil Revelations didn't even have gameplay. It was simply a video you could fiddle around with. Metal Gear Solid: The Naked Sample, as much as I hate to say it, was just a pretty looking tech demo. Most things are simply tech demos. Some stuff didn't even get that far and just got screenies, which show even less. A picture means a thousand words but it also means at least a hundred questions. And a good amount of games didn't even get screenies but were simply announced. Nothing more, nothing less. And if you look for 3DS games that were announced with extensive info you'll find that list very, very small.
I doubt any of you went to E3. I doubt any of you even got within 10 ft of a 3DS. But we're all making assumptions it's great based on game trailers, what games are coming to the 3DS, and nothing more but either controlled released footage by Nintendo of the 3DS or leaked cam footage that, if anything, indefinite. Critic impressions are there but critic impressions are also just as positive or negative as their bank accounts are and the deposits they get from big business video game companies. There's also of course the novelty factor. Get any new gizmo that isn't a hunk of shit and you'll think it's awesome. But given a few weeks the novelty wears off and you really have to see the device for what it really is. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge it until you have had it in your hands for a fair amount of time and if you can judge it with an unbiased mind.
The 3DS also, at this point, lacks competition. There's nothing to compare it to. There's no PSP2 yet and the only other thing is probably the iPhone 4, but that's still borderline between a personal media device and a video game console. So it'll look amazing since it has no competition. If I make a machine that there's no market competition for then it'll look awesome since it doesn't have a comparison. Comparing the 3DS to anything at this point is like comparing the PS3 and the PS2 and seeing which one has better tech.
Speaking of the PSP2, who knows how that'll be? First off, don't say the PSP was a bad system. It wasn't. It had good games, good functionality, and it was an overall satisfying console in general and a worthy product for Sony to have in the handheld market. I'd say the DS is better myself but the PSP definitely had an edge over the DS in terms of graphics, functionality, and that analog nub made a huge difference. The PSP2 for all we know could bring a lot to the table. 3DS graphics look good but what is Sony tops them? That'll be amazing looking. What if the PSP2 gets a great starting library. I mean Sony does have a largely impressive library at its fingers, putting some of their big ones onto the PSP2 development schedule can really turn the tide. And what if it brings another analog stick or nub? That's dual analog and it's been a standard for consoles for a bit now (and it works well too). Maybe it'll have a touchscreen too. Oh, and going off on a small rant here, pointing fingers and calling companies copycats is worthless. If you make a good product it doesn't matter what it rips off of. And most anything can be called a "copycat product" or "ripoff" since popular ideas make money, and things that make money become trends in the market, and trends in the market are implemented into products in that market. But anyway, we don't know how to stack the 3DS up yet until we have a litmus test.
All in all, the 3DS should not be judged quickly and branded as fantastic. Until we have proper competition to compare it with and a more clear impression if it, we can't be stacking it up already.
Now, that's my devil's advocate viewpoint. Prove me wrong! Really, please do, good arguments that are actually fun to debate are hard to come by. Be logical, be kind, be respectful, and we can all have a great debate