Talk about misquoting. You do know that a core game can appeal to a younger consumer, right? What i understand from what he said was that they don't know how to make mature core content."Nintendo of America boss Reggie Fils-Aime has admitted that Nintendo is "not good" at creating "core" games, and needs to actively court third-parties to make more mature titles like BioShock 2 for the platform.
"The fact of the matter is we know we create great content for younger consumers, we know we've got great content for more casual players, and we want fantastic content for that more active player who loves Metroid or Zelda but maybe also wants something like a BioShock 2 to play as well," he toldIndustry Gamersat GDC.
"And we also recognize that we don't create that type of content ourselves. We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area. We want that content on our platform, so we have to court third-party developers and encourage them to make [those games]."
Asked how Nintendo might persuade third-parties, who seem increasingly sceptical about supporting the Wii, to create games for it, Fils-Aime argued that developing expensive, technically advanced core games for other platforms was not profitable.
"Developers love to create technically advanced games, and very visually stunning games, but the fact of the matter is not all of that content is selling exceptionally well either," he yapped.
"Look at the most recent NPD results. I'm not sure how much was invested into a game like Dante's Inferno, or how much is invested into a game like BioShock 2, but if that sales level is the best that they will do in a particular month, and it'll fall off rapidly from there, then those games aren't going to pay off their investment."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/reggie-nintendo-not-good-at-core-games
dog_dirt
tok1879's forum posts
[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there. Journalism is not known for its stellar record of non-bias, or heck even its non-prejudice. At all levels, scientific, political, tv news, etc, there are all kinds of biases, due to market pressures, axes to grind, and numerous other causes. Being a journalist in no may makes you immune to bias or worse prejudice. Not saying that is the case here, but it is not a good defense in general.KingsMessenger
Journalism isn't immune to bias. However, gaming on the Xbox 360 is really not that different from gaming on the PS3. And trying to claim that EDGE would try to purposely rate one system's games lower than another system's games just doesn't make any sense. What motivation is there for such an action? Honestly?
You know it's quite possible for them to simply have a preference, right? You know like how "journalists" from MSNBC are more likely to be leaning left and those from FOX are more likely leaning right."not just because it doesn't exists..." You seem to be so sure. Is it like a gut feeling or something? Or do you work at Edge? Do you understand that even if according to you, his premise was not justification enough for his conclusion, that it is still in the realm of possibility that Edge actually might be bias against the ps3 in their reviews? So what is reading the magazine going to do? Is it going to change the way I see the scores handed out to ps3 games?[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
You can't prove a bias. Not just because it doesn't exists. But also because there is no way to isolate it within any data set.
Feel free to continue with your conspiracy theories, but I suggest you actually try to read their magazine and then come back and tell me it is biased.
KingsMessenger
I am relatively certain. Not completely certain, but honestly... Do you REALLY think that a bunch of veteran journalists who have been doing this for decades would REALLY have an overt bias against a particular console? REALLY? Care to explain how this is plausible or logical?
So it's a gut feeling then. Well I think you hold too much faith in humanity. Not that this is that serious after all it's only video-games we're debating here, but people with more serious responsibilities have been known to do worse.So, if I'm a raging black hater, I can't ever, not even once, be nice to a black? If you're going to make claim to logic, at least have some. Bias is PATTERN, not a hard core, never broken RULE.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
i love how logic and 'facts' are such fickle things in sw
once again, IF edge was biased towards the ps3, then how did they score several ps3 games higher than the metacritic average?
i would love to know why this 'fact' is ignored
ogvampire
yes... and there isnt a pattern since they rated more than a couple ps3 exclusives HIGHER than the metacritic average
once again, this comparison does NOT work with edge since they score things differently than EVERY OTHER SITE on metacritic... why is that so hard for people to understand?
if youre gonna say edge is biased cause they score ps3 games lower than metacritic, then you could say they are biased towards the 360 for doing the same thing
No, that would be them being harsher to ALL games. But compared to metacritic reviews they are nicer to 360 games than they are to ps3 games.[QUOTE="tok1879"] And all of a sudden, you're starting to make sense. But you still failed with your CO2 example as it seemed to me like you were presenting a straw argument. And your excuse for the day they receive review copies doesn't make much sense either. That said, i could help you out with a possible explanation. Perhaps they don't enjoy the ps3 controller as much as they do that of the 360 resulting in a less enjoyable experience. Or maybe the XMB interface is too cluttered for them. I agree though that i wouldn't have come to that conclusion that directly. But the data is there, and it shows that they score ps3 games much less than they do for 360 games on average. And unless you can come up with how the data is flawed, how else can one prove the bias without having them confess to it?KingsMessenger
You can't prove a bias. Not just because it doesn't exists. But also because there is no way to isolate it within any data set.
Feel free to continue with your conspiracy theories, but I suggest you actually try to read their magazine and then come back and tell me it is biased.
"not just because it doesn't exists..." You seem to be so sure. Is it like a gut feeling or something? Or do you work at Edge? Do you understand that even if according to you, his premise was not justification enough for his conclusion, that it is still in the realm of possibility that Edge actually might be bias against the ps3 in their reviews? So what is reading the magazine going to do? Is it going to change the way I see the scores handed out to ps3 games?N4g don't do articles. They have links to other articles. And yes, the site is swarming with ps3 fanboys. But here is the link to the site they linked to if you want to read it.N4g? sorry no won't be giving it hits, wish I could read the article though *as long as its not an n4g article*
WilliamRLBaker
With which statements? The one with atmospheric CO2? We're not talking about atmospheric CO2 here. There's no clear correlation in CO2 and crime levels and if there were, it would be abstract at best. But here, metacritic scores are made of single reviews from different publications. Each individual review clearly affects the metacritic score though to a different degree based on how many reviews there are for that game and the weight Metacritic places on each review. That said, unless you could prove to us that his selection process for the top games he picked was flawed, everything he did seemed pretty rational to me.[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
Please explain what is wrong with my statements? Honestly? I am just dying to hear what you have to say.
KingsMessenger
Wow you completely missed the point of my CO2 comment... Amazing. I thought it was obvious, but you proved me wrong.
What I was TRYING to show was that just because you can correlate two data trends does not make them inherently linked. Just because EDGE tends to give PS3 games lower scores do NOT mean that there is any sort of bias there. Could be some other factor that is not at all related to bias. Hence my example of the day they receive the review copy from Sony. That is just one possible explanation.
Also, I wasn't challenging his data set. His data set is perfectly valid. What I am challenging is the assumptions made from said data sit. There is not one single valid assumption that anyone can make from his data outside of the fact that there is a CORRELATION between games being on the PS3 and them receiving lower scores from EDGE than the overall Metacritic score. But that in itself is a useless and insignificant little fact.
And all of a sudden, you're starting to make sense. But you still failed with your CO2 example as it seemed to me like you were presenting a straw argument. And your excuse for the day they receive review copies doesn't make much sense either. That said, i could help you out with a possible explanation. Perhaps they don't enjoy the ps3 controller as much as they do that of the 360 resulting in a less enjoyable experience. Or maybe the XMB interface is too cluttered for them. I agree though that i wouldn't have come to that conclusion that directly. But the data is there, and it shows that they score ps3 games much less than they do for 360 games on average. And unless you can come up with how the data is flawed, how else can one prove the bias without having them confess to it?[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="Espada12"]
The data isn't flawed to be honest. It maybe a fanboy blog but doesn't make it any less true.
tok1879
It is inherently flawed given the scoring system employed by EDGE. Sometime as simple as the week that a game is scored could drop the scores from EDGE because they do not have a single scoring criteria beyond "Whatever you feel like giving it."
For all we know, Sony could send review copies to PS3 exclusives towards the end of the magazine cycle when the EDGE reviewers are under a lot more stress and would be more easily aggravated.
Also, all this proves is a correlation, not a causation. Until you can prove a causal link between the platform and the score, all you have here is an ultimately insignificant trend. The meat behind a review in EDGE is what is written. Can't say that for a number of other review sources, but it IS the case for EDGE.
I don't think logic is your friend. On topic. I'm trying to find a hole in his presentation even though i pretty much agree with it, but i can't seem to find any. Can anyone come up with any suggestions? Something that doesn't have to do with what week of the month certain game exclusives are being reviewed. GOT IT! Came up with one. Well not really a strong one but one nonetheless. The argument will still be true and the conclusion false if any or both of the follow occurred. 1. The 360 exclusive publications on average overrated 360 games. 2. The ps3 exclusive publications on average underrated ps3 games. If either were true, it could have the effect of pulling the 360 up closer to their Metacritic scores and have an opposite effect on the ps3 reviews.Too late. I have. And i repeat. LOGIC iS NOT YOUR FRIEND!! Do I see a straw somewhere in that quote?[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
LOGIC IS NOT MY FRIEND? Seriously, take a freaking science or statistics class.
"Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime."
How is that logical? That is EXACTLY what the blog is doing and exactly what the person I quoted was doing.
Just because two data sets have correlating trends does NOT mean that they are linked.
KingsMessenger
Please explain what is wrong with my statements? Honestly? I am just dying to hear what you have to say.
With which statements? The one with atmospheric CO2? We're not talking about atmospheric CO2 here. There's no clear correlation in CO2 and crime levels and if there were, it would be abstract at best. But here, metacritic scores are made of single reviews from different publications. Each individual review clearly affects the metacritic score though to a different degree based on how many reviews there are for that game and the weight Metacritic places on each review. That said, unless you could prove to us that his selection process for the top games he picked was flawed, everything he did seemed pretty rational to me.
Log in to comment