Please, please explain to me how people can defend no online at this day and age

#71Nice_Kirbyfan9Posted 12/12/2012 2:31:11 PM
From: Baha05 | #070
My point is not everyone will find the time to play video games together on or offline. I'm not knocking Online, I'm saying that even with online there is still going to be SOME form of possible trouble playing with friends. Online doesn't magic away the issue, it only makes the issue a lot easy to get around.

So like I said before, you arguing an issue nobody brought up? Who said online magically solves all issues with multiplayer?
---
If you disagree with the views expressed in this post, feel free to put me on ignore.
http://i46.tinypic.com/b83ehv.gif
#72LonelyGoombaPosted 12/12/2012 2:31:52 PM
tc is spot on
---
NNID: Deep4t
#73Baha05Posted 12/12/2012 2:33:32 PM
Nice_Kirbyfan9 posted...
So like I said before, you arguing an issue nobody brought up? Who said online magically solves all issues with multiplayer?


"Indeed. But that is not always possible, online would solve this problem."

You did, by claiming that it solves the problem, which isn't true at all because again even with online you'd still have to plan a date when you and a bunch of friends want to play a game together.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#74Solid_SOAPPosted 12/12/2012 2:34:19 PM
Baha05 posted...
Read my above reply, again I'm saying that online doesn't magic away issues with finding time to play together. You can still play video games and play online when you do have free time but there are still going to be some form of issues.


And such is life, nothing is perfect. The only way online gaming is going to improve is if more companies see it as standard, which Nintendo have failed to do.
#75Baha05Posted 12/12/2012 2:36:34 PM
Solid_SOAP posted...
And such is life, nothing is perfect. The only way online gaming is going to improve is if more companies see it as standard, which Nintendo have failed to do.


Online gaming doesn't really NEED improving outside of the issues it has. Even if they perfect the art of online gaming there is still the one issue of finding the time to play online with friends. Now randoms of course isn't an issue but sometimes randoms can be jerks, or maybe you don't like said randoms, or you enjoy playing with your friends.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#76NyyarkPosted 12/12/2012 2:40:31 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...

Nyyark posted...
I won't because there isn't one. (maybe because they wasted their money on online multiplayer instead of other things like offline game design) The only people who know how to make games like that that sell to any demographic seems to be Nintendo, and as part of that demographic does buy those kinds of games I know I don't care about online.

You are conjecturing that you know more than the leading producer of a genre how that genre is best designed and how they should invest their money in design. You have no historical data, no analytical data, and yet you try and make the argument that you are a reliable source of information.

My defense of the decision is that any addition to any game costs money, and the only people who seem to be making money on this kind of game don't want to spend it that way. Perhaps most of the people who buy the game don't want them to either.

I said I felt bad for TC. I do. But I also don't think there are enough of people like TC to make spending the money to cater to TC's preference worthwhile. For my reasoning see above.



It's hardly wasted money if the player base has shown a massive preference for online multiplayer as opposed to local. It's become quite clear that you're defending a stupid choice because you find the concept of criticising Nintendo when they deserve it a painful one. These sorts of games would only benefit from online multiplayer and that much is incredibly obvious, your excuses are flimsy and I sincerely doubt even you actually believe them.


Yay more personal attacks. *sarcasm*

I totally agree with your first sentence anyways, but where has the player base for Mini games shown a massive preference for Online instead of local? They NEVER have. In some genre's online is essential, it's true, but that has never been the case in the past for Nintendo Land's Genre.

Are you asserting that it is the same demographic buying Nintendo Land as the one ones buying COD et all? I mean I'd totally be behind this argument if it was something like Starfox 64 3DS, or even Pikmin 3. I lament both those games lacking online, and I suspect that the playerbase has a much greater overlap with the player base that prefers online. But Nintendo Land's demographic is going to be more akin to Wii Sport's and Wii Fit's demographic would you think?
#77Solid_SOAPPosted 12/12/2012 2:40:53 PM
Baha05 posted...
Solid_SOAP posted...
And such is life, nothing is perfect. The only way online gaming is going to improve is if more companies see it as standard, which Nintendo have failed to do.


Online gaming doesn't really NEED improving outside of the issues it has. Even if they perfect the art of online gaming there is still the one issue of finding the time to play online with friends. Now randoms of course isn't an issue but sometimes randoms can be jerks, or maybe you don't like said randoms, or you enjoy playing with your friends.


Not an issue, it's rather easy and you keep bringing the same repetitive arguments up again and again so I think this debate has reached its limit. Clearly you lack time management skills.
#78Nice_Kirbyfan9Posted 12/12/2012 2:42:43 PM
From: Baha05 | #073
Nice_Kirbyfan9 posted...
So like I said before, you arguing an issue nobody brought up? Who said online magically solves all issues with multiplayer?


"Indeed. But that is not always possible, online would solve this problem."

You did, by claiming that it solves the problem, which isn't true at all because again even with online you'd still have to plan a date when you and a bunch of friends want to play a game together.

Like I said before, do not join in a conversation if you do not know what the people are talking about.

The Quote:
Indeed. But that is not always possible, online would solve this problem.


Was in direct response to this quote:
However having them over at your place and playing Nintendo land is a great thing to do once a week.


By "this problem" I am referring to the fact that is not possible to get friends to come to my house. As I have said before my friends live across the country so playing online solves the problem of us not all being able to meet at a house.

Do you finally understand it?
---
If you disagree with the views expressed in this post, feel free to put me on ignore.
http://i46.tinypic.com/b83ehv.gif
#79Baha05Posted 12/12/2012 2:45:22 PM(edited)
Solid_SOAP posted...
Not an issue, it's rather easy and you keep bringing the same repetitive arguments up again and again so I think this debate has reached its limit. Clearly you lack time management skills.


Not an issue to some, time management might have a bit to do with it but again you are still presented with having to set these things up, so online only makes the issue of finding the time to get together in person better by making you save money and time on gas and driving to a friends house.

@ Kirby: For you online is fine but again it doesn't solve the issue of finding the time to play a game with your friends, it only helps the issue by saving money and time trying to get together at a house. Not everyone is going to have similar time frames to play games and even if you do know your friend schedules, you'd still need to plan a day or some when you are all free.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#80MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 2:57:01 PM
Nyyark posted...
MegaWinFTW posted...

Nyyark posted...
I won't because there isn't one. (maybe because they wasted their money on online multiplayer instead of other things like offline game design) The only people who know how to make games like that that sell to any demographic seems to be Nintendo, and as part of that demographic does buy those kinds of games I know I don't care about online.

You are conjecturing that you know more than the leading producer of a genre how that genre is best designed and how they should invest their money in design. You have no historical data, no analytical data, and yet you try and make the argument that you are a reliable source of information.

My defense of the decision is that any addition to any game costs money, and the only people who seem to be making money on this kind of game don't want to spend it that way. Perhaps most of the people who buy the game don't want them to either.

I said I felt bad for TC. I do. But I also don't think there are enough of people like TC to make spending the money to cater to TC's preference worthwhile. For my reasoning see above.



It's hardly wasted money if the player base has shown a massive preference for online multiplayer as opposed to local. It's become quite clear that you're defending a stupid choice because you find the concept of criticising Nintendo when they deserve it a painful one. These sorts of games would only benefit from online multiplayer and that much is incredibly obvious, your excuses are flimsy and I sincerely doubt even you actually believe them.


Yay more personal attacks. *sarcasm*

I totally agree with your first sentence anyways, but where has the player base for Mini games shown a massive preference for Online instead of local? They NEVER have. In some genre's online is essential, it's true, but that has never been the case in the past for Nintendo Land's Genre.

Are you asserting that it is the same demographic buying Nintendo Land as the one ones buying COD et all? I mean I'd totally be behind this argument if it was something like Starfox 64 3DS, or even Pikmin 3. I lament both those games lacking online, and I suspect that the playerbase has a much greater overlap with the player base that prefers online. But Nintendo Land's demographic is going to be more akin to Wii Sport's and Wii Fit's demographic would you think?


It's not so much a personal attack as it is an analysis of why you're seemingly so against something that would do nothing but improve things. Any game with multiplayer would benefit from having online options, what exactly is the difference between some friends getting together to play a game like this together and friends who don't live close enough to actually meet up for such a purpose doing so online? How are those demographics so wildly different? Most adults should be able to relate to such scenarios, why defend the decision to not allow anyone who doesn't have enough friends who are both interested in playing and live close enough to play locally to enjoy the multiplayer?