Pestneb Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 @flameboy wasn't this guy waxing lyrical to you about how to post respectfully yesterday? This sarcastic post levels a great deal of irony right back at him. Actually I would say it was more fanciful of me. But fair enough, I apologise. However, can you direct me to the rules/regulations that specify statements that require proof? I presume that as you didn't specifically frame this as your opinion that it is verifiable fact, that as such you have external sources from which you have based your conclusion upon. This framework could prove useful for forum members wanting to ensure their post will be properly received.
Sheikah Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 They don't require proof. But if you make bold statements as opposed to saying that you think something, they are very easy to disassemble as above without proof.
Pestneb Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 So I think Nintendo should go third party = fine Nintendo should go third party = requiring proof? Surely the "I think" statement part is heavily implied by the fact you are writing it and the fact you haven't supplied evidence? Or do we have to pepper all our posts with "In my opinion" "I believe" "I think" etc. just to ensure we aren't told we have to supply proof? Surely we are all able to understand that statements without supporting evidence are opinion? I just don't understand the whole issue here but ho hum
Kav Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 They don't require proof. But if you make bold statements as opposed to saying that you think something, they are very easy to disassemble as above without proof. So then Daft should post proof of the bold statement he made first about weak leadership being worse for morale, then Serebii can post his proof of redundancies being worse..? Or we're you just of prong Daft's statement because you like going on at Serebii? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm simply asking because of the way this thread has come across, that's how it appears to me.
Happenstance Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Yesterdays arguments were so much better
flameboy Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Actually I would say it was more fanciful of me.But fair enough, I apologise. However, can you direct me to the rules/regulations that specify statements that require proof? I presume that as you didn't specifically frame this as your opinion that it is verifiable fact, that as such you have external sources from which you have based your conclusion upon. This framework could prove useful for forum members wanting to ensure their post will be properly received. Why can't you just leave it at the apology. Your trolling at this point. You know full well asking for rules and regulations about statements that require proof is gonna piss people off.
Sheikah Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 So then Daft should post proof of the bold statement he made first about weak leadership being worse for morale, then Serebii can post his proof of redundancies being worse..? Or we're you just of prong Daft's statement because you like going on at Serebii? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm simply asking because of the way this thread has come across, that's how it appears to me. Technically Serebii was first with this ("it is not happening" post which triggered RLink's response, as well as Serebii saying it had an effect on their quality of work. They may be pro!) But I agree, it works both ways. And who really cares who says it first, eh? I think we may be being a bit childish. :p
Pestneb Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Why can't you just leave it at the apologise. Your trolling at this point. You know full well asking for rules and regulations about statements that require proof is gonna piss people off. Because I actually wanted to better understand what the criteria were. He was making bold assertions and I was curious as to why they didn't need to be evidenced. My overall point was it's a bit silly making all these rules about when evidence is or isn't required. I thought it may have led to some clarity on the situation if others were confused as I was. I assume that you're not trolling either, and are merely genuinely curious as to why I made that post.
Retro_Link Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 This is so tedious and tiring. So I think Nintendo should go third party = fine Nintendo should go third party = requiring proof? No, this... http://www.n-europe.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1653139&postcount=135 is an example of where a quote or something would be nice as the opinion is instead being stated as fact and people are being told what to do.
flameboy Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Because I actually wanted to better understand what the criteria were.He was making bold assertions and I was curious as to why they didn't need to be evidenced. My overall point was it's a bit silly making all these rules about when evidence is or isn't required. I thought it may have led to some clarity on the situation if others were confused as I was. I assume that you're not trolling either, and are merely genuinely curious as to why I made that post. But you know there are no criteria. It's @Serebii that started this search for evidence with his continual mantra of I only make posts/points that apply fact and logic. Facts are packed up with evidence and proof. Logic is then applied to these facts to draw conclusions. So if he is drawing from this infinite well of facts it would be nice to see some of them once in a while. He has been called out and you don't like it!
dazzybee Posted January 20, 2014 Author Posted January 20, 2014 oh boy.... what has happened to this place...
Pestneb Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 To be honest it's the bullying attitude that goes with it. But obviously reasoning is not the path, so it's option b
Agent Gibbs Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 jesus stop bickering and get on with discussion, can't we all learn to get along or ignore those that annoy us (i realise that opens me up to be ignored....)
flameboy Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 To be honest it's the bullying attitude that goes with it. But obviously reasoning is not the path, so it's option b But you're the bully's right hand man! A bully never likes it when others lash back. I swear you guys are like Bulk and Skull!
Jamba Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Yes semantics should be fed in small doses. It's important but it's all getting rather tedious...
Happenstance Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 But you're the bully's right hand man! A bully never likes it when others lash back. I swear you guys are like Bulk and Skull! WHOA WHOA WHOA! Lets not tarnish the good name of Bulk and Skull! Those guys were heroes!
dazzybee Posted January 20, 2014 Author Posted January 20, 2014 So we've seen mario and sonic olympics, 3rd parties in smash bros. The Dynasty Warriors Zelda game. If they went 3rd party, what sony or microsft crossovers would people like to see?! And no ones allowed to bring up Little Big Planet!!!
Retro_Link Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 So we've seen mario and sonic olympics, 3rd parties in smash bros. The Dynasty Warriors Zelda game. If they went 3rd party, what sony or microsft crossovers would people like to see?! And no ones allowed to bring up Little Big Planet!!! 1. Little Big Planet :/
flameboy Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 So we've seen mario and sonic olympics, 3rd parties in smash bros. The Dynasty Warriors Zelda game. If they went 3rd party, what sony or microsft crossovers would people like to see?! And no ones allowed to bring up Little Big Planet!!! Master Chief hunting Pokémon!!!
Pestneb Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Or 2nd Party. I'd not like the idea of 3rd Party exclusives, which could happen. I'd love to buy only one or two consoles. True. If they ceased to be 1st party developers I would prefer to be able to choose one console. A scenario where mario kart was on PS5 and smash bros on Xtwo would imo be the worst possible scenario, if they were to become 3rd party. Edited January 20, 2014 by Pestneb
dazzybee Posted January 20, 2014 Author Posted January 20, 2014 Master Chief hunting Pokémon!!! A zombi U multiplayer version, one player is Master Chief and the Pokemon Trainer is playing the strategy role laying his pokemon in the level...
flameboy Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 A zombi U multiplayer version, one player is Master Chief and the Pokemon Trainer is playing the strategy role laying his pokemon in the level... YES! Make it happen someone!!! PLEASE lol
Agent Gibbs Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Metroid Halo crossover! Mario Uncharted Crossover(Drake gets trapped in the mushroom kingdom and explores castles!) Zelda God of War crossover?
Pestneb Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Most of Nintendo's crossover work is intended to build support for their console though isn't it? Get 3rd party characters into 1st party titles, free advertising, familiarise the Nintendo crowd with those franchises in an attempt to boost sales/ lend ip so that games do better than they would as a non nintendo ip. How likely would that continue if Nintendo ditched the hardware?
flameboy Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Most of Nintendo's crossover work is intended to build support for their console though isn't it? Get 3rd party characters into 1st party titles, free advertising, familiarise the Nintendo crowd with those franchises in an attempt to boost sales/ lend ip so that games do better than they would as a non nintendo ip.How likely would that continue if Nintendo ditched the hardware? I've always questioned that practice myself it's very suspect how much it actually drives sales of those other IPs on Nintendo platforms. The only example I can think that worked is in reverse Link appearing in Soul Calibur 2 and many people preferring that version as a result. BUT it was the only iteration to appear on Nintendo consoles (discounting that third person Wii game) So it makes me wonder how it sold. Obviously not enough to convince Namco that it would continue to flourish on Nintendo platforms just like I don't think we've seen a Ridge Racer on a home console since Ridge Racer 64.
Recommended Posts