Zero Punctuation: The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds

[EvilRoy]

No, you kind of don't. Consider a more ridiculous example to make the issue more obvious - a news report citing two anonymous developers claiming that the WiiU contains a tiny man who creates the gameplay and visual by reading a script on the game disk and using his acting and props behind the TV screen. Do I really need a countersource to dispute the claims made in the article? Of course not.

I'm glad you noted that it was a "more ridiculous example" so I wouldn't have to point you to the Wikipedia article about "reductio ad absurdum".

In this case the issue is roughly the same. In the first few lines one article the author immediately admits the article is based on a rumour, has not been confirmed by Nintendo, and despite being quite old has not been updated with confirmation from Nintendo - implying that it was never received. Another report you cited includes speculation on specifications for the Wii U that have since been proven false - something that I noted without requiring a reference.

Because at the time of those articles, the specifications of the console were not 100% hard-testable. And Nintendo is rarely forthcoming about its specs.

However, there are other articles with more technical information. For example, this one asserts that the GPU is clearly more powerful, though it notes (as I did) the fact that the processor is a problem. Given the data therein, yeah, it does seem like the console is underpowered for what it should be, primarily due to bottle-necking in the processing unit.

Sure there are other articles, but those aren't the articles you posted. You made claims based on extremely poor sources, the fact that the articles are old excuse their contents, but it doesn't change the fact that they are the articles you chose to cite.

I don't mean to be rude, and I've apparently gained one less post graduate degree than you, but this is something that I actually came across during the course of my thesis. My professor noted a technical paper included methodology that would be considered questionable by today's standard, although at the time it was more or less normal. His reaction? He threw the whole report in the garbage and called me an embarrassment to the university. So please understand my trepidation at accepting your claims that this is acceptable, although I realize that standards will be different between universities and professors.

Not sure I like the implication that the standards at the universities I graduated from are somehow "lower" than yours, but I'll overlook it because (as I said before) it's pointlessly off-topic. The fact that I even had to flash my credentials like a bloody amateur in order to establish my knowledge base on the subject is vexing enough, I have no desire to commit to a measuring contest.

That wasn't my intent. Rather I meant to note my previous experience, with the disclaimer that not all systems are the same. Its entirely possible that my professor was just a hard-ass. I have no metric to judge that against because I never had to answer to a different professor. He certainly had it in him to be a prick for prick's sake in non-academic areas.

The important thing, here, is that there are two elements to a proper academic debate:
1) Dismissal of your opponent's claims
2) Providing your own counter-claims
And both of these elements require some form of evidencing behind their logic, whether through links to credible sources or through deductive reasoning using the information previously gathered.

The person above did not do that. He stated that the claims seemed dubious to him, did not provide evidence as to why he thought them dubious (other than to claim "they dismiss themselves"), and refrained from providing any evidence to counter-claim. You've actually done more in that regard than he has in only one post, and it took me three posts to get as far with him as I did.

I can accept that, and no he didn't do much to explain his dismissal, but I didn't see his statement to be the start of a debate - although that may be a misunderstanding on my part. I simply thought he was noting that there are issues in basing an argument on the sources you were providing, which is something that I agree with. In that instance I don't think that #2 is particularly necessary. Its enough to simply note that the sources provided are poor, and that your argument is more or less baseless because of it. Even if I agreed with your argument I would be compelled to note that, since it makes that whole side of the argument look less credible.

 

[EvilRoy]

I can accept that, and no he didn't do much to explain his dismissal, but I didn't see his statement to be the start of a debate - although that may be a misunderstanding on my part. I simply thought he was noting that there are issues in basing an argument on the sources you were providing, which is something that I agree with. In that instance I don't think that #2 is particularly necessary. Its enough to simply note that the sources provided are poor, and that your argument is more or less baseless because of it. Even if I agreed with your argument I would be compelled to note that, since it makes that whole side of the argument look less credible.

Which is something I strongly disagree with. It is not possible to have a proper debate about something if only one side of the argument feels any particular need to provide any citations for their opinions.

But there isn't really a debate going on here. As I said, even if I agreed with the initial premise I would be compelled to note that the sources provided are extremely weak. In that case it makes no sense to provide counter-sources because it would mean arguing against my own side. Rather, one would hope that once the sources are pointed out as weak the original poster would simply produce superior sources. To my mind this is akin to nudging a friend and shaking your head after they make a weak argument. I don't want to debate my friend on his argument (in this hypothetical we're on the same side of the discussion), but I need him to know that what he just said weakened our entire side of the argument, and provided ammunition to the opposition.

 

[Extragorey]

I think Yahtzee has been growing steadily more repulsive over the last few months. By which I mean he resorts to disgusting and offensive imagery in order to shock people or get a few cheap laughs - which has always been the case with ZP, obviously, but it used to be stomachable.
There's no reason he can't do what he does - "review" (garotte) games with amusing metaphors and quirky animations - without resorting to such frequent use of sexually explicit terms.
All that said, he presented some good points in this video (unoriginal, but still good) with Sony and Microsoft racing to achieve redundancy.
But I think he can do better than the increasingly bawdy videos he's made lately. His modus operandi seems to have become "make cringey, disgusting sexual jokes to depict the game or publisher" rather than "make a quirky video that shamelessly pulls apart every flaw in the game using outside-the-box metaphors and prosopopoeia."

 

[Aardvaarkman]

My sources were not of sufficient quality to you, fine and fair enough. But debates require citations from both sides of the table. That is something he has shown no willingness to provide. So it is a waste of my time to humor him, or anyone else who chooses to behave in such a fashion, any further. Simple as that.

You seem to be missing the point here. I have said multiple times that I am not trying to prove anything for any side. I wasn't trying to start a debate.

I am not "on the other side of the table" from you. I am not on any side of the table. When I saw your claim of the Wii U being significantly more powerful than the 360 or PS3, that interested me, because I had not heard that before. So, I followed your links, and was disappointed to find that they were extremely lacking, and did not show what you claimed they did.

It would be great if you showed some evidence that backed your claim.

I'm tired to death of people thinking they can just say whatever they want and not even attempt to back it up, especially on the bloody internet, where sources are so readily available.

If you're so sick of it, then why did you do exactly that? The sources you provided weren't any better than no sources at all.

Also, I did provide a link, to the Ars Technica article about the Wii U, although there is insufficient data there to back any claims other than power consumption or web browsing performance. It seems that there is a conspicuous lack of actual data about the Wii U's performance, so anybody's claims that don't include test data, are suspect.

It would be like a scientist making claim about how Quantum particles work, without actually providing and experimental data and linking to an opinion column by somebody speculating how quantum particles might work.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" - and that's the stance I'm taking. I don't know how powerful a Wii U is relative to other consoles. But you don't either, until you can show the data.

 

[deadish]

HAHA. Nice bait and switch.

Seriously though, nothing wrong with focusing on online multiplayer. You still play with your friends, except they/you don't need to come all the way to your/their house just to do so.

Throw in mics and cameras ...

 

[Strazdas]

yeah i mentioned that one and regardless the previous red factions also featured destructible terrain

Yes, previuos versions did feature it, however they done it very poorly and seem to abandon the concept couple levels in. and since you asked for good destructible enviroment, Guerilla is the one to go. I never played battlefield 3 but i heard you can take down whole hotels there with enough granade launcher ammo so if thats true that would qualify too i guess.

we have different definitions of innovation then

Yes we do. I am using the official definition [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovation]
"1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced."

dude you totally should, atleast if you have any passing interest on strategy games

I agree. however my current list called "Games to play when time available" consists of 167 games (finished one yesterday!), so that may not be as easy as it sounds. Strategy is my favourite genre.

ANYWAYS, yes the old X-COM made good use of destructible environments

Looks like that brings it to 3 games total.

I just got through explaining to the other guy that we're not in middle school any more. You can't dismiss sources with your word, you need other sources that run contrary to it or at least shed doubt upon it. So I'd like to see which sources you have available that disprove mine.

This is so wrong......
If i were to give you a source (very bad one at that) that says there is unicorns living under my bed, you could not dismiss it unless you privide a source that proves otherwise? SO unless you invade my bedroom you have to accept that there are unicorns there? This is a very stupid model.

True but again the market for physical is still there and with only estimations from analysts so far we can only go with companies figures.

Certainly it exists. however it isnt such overwhelming majority as you make it out to be, and it is shrinking every year, what with EA reporting to have more sales digitally than physically, and thats the company that can afford releasing every gameo n phyiscal, which isnt true for something like Paradox.

Again true, though I thought the new console were mostly 1080p just about with only a few 720p upscaled games ?
by the time 4K comes out if services have improved we might be at the level of downloading blue ray games (if now is any indication of progress)

They claimed they would be before release. As it is right now only 1 game on Xbox manages 1080p and 60 fps. thier "Best looking game" Ryse runs at 900p. I am not sure at how many games on PS4 achieve that, but i wouldnt be surprised if that is also a low number. So if it cannot even get 1080p properly, doing 4k with the same machine is simply impossible.

Yes but there are people even worse internet wise.

just because some people cannot afford food does not mean we should stop stocking it in the market. I know there are people with diaup still and i pity them and wish they would rise up against their abusive ISPs, but hey, im asking people to work in unison, im evil communist right?

That would be if you were to say the future of gaming was entirely along the mobile route.

Entirely, or not, mobile gaming is the most profitable and fastest growing gaming market.

Because believe it or not there was a legitimate push to stop multi-disk games once it became possible to have larger discs.
This generation Microsoft have actually fined some developers who released games on multiple discs.

Because 1 DVD was cheaper than 6 CDs. Such is not a case of SSD vs 2 bluerays though.
And microsoft being a retard is hardly an argument.

[quoet]I think the largest app I have is 1.3GB and that's due to a large audio book component in it. Most apps tend to range from about 50 MB to 250MB. Compare that to console games.[/quote]
If i were to let my GPS to download its maps fully, would be over 4 GB just for europe alone. I dont count audiobooks as parts of app. if i did - thats easily ranging from 20gb and upwards.
It is true however that most games seems to be contempt within 100 mb.

 

[Thanatos2k]

BARELY more powerful

*sigh*

Are you one of those people who thought the Wii is just as good as the PS3/360 also and it was all the developer's faults that the games didn't look as good?

Do I need to pull out a link where EA tested Frostbite 2 on the Wii U and it couldn't perform? Theoretical specs always fall apart when people try to get code running on it in the real world.

http://nintendoeverything.com/15-ea-games-are-going-to-skip-wii-u-due-to-its-lack-of-support-for-frostbite-3/

No, it's called when a company says something you always assume it's a lie unless they show you otherwise. "Pledging support" has got to be the most empty nonsense, and you took them seriously? You believed *EA*???

Until they say "We are pledging to release *this game* on the Wii U" there's nothing to hold anyone accountable for. OBVIOUSLY their support is predicated on both how the console performed and how Nintendo treated support for the developers. Both were lacking. And so the empty promises were forgotten. Can you blame them? I don't. When Ubisoft pledged third party support and then their games didn't sell because Nintendo didn't even know how to market the console properly I don't blame them for pulling out.

Oh, so it's okay because "you can't trust devs"?

That's....incredibly bad logic. I mean, I don't know what else to say to that. You're excusing the liar for lying to you on the grounds that, well, he's a liar and it's what he does. Problem is, that doesn't excuse his lies at all. Sure, it makes you and anyone who believed the lies feel foolish, but it doesn't automatically excuse him from making them in the first place.

Well you clearly let Nintendo off the hook, given they've said stuff like:

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/04/02/satoru-iwata-hubris-versus-western-culture/

"It's important that you be able to supply software with no pause," said Iwata. "With the DS and Wii, following the titles that were released at launch, the momentum dropped when there was a gap in software releases. We're making plans so that this type of thing won't happen."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/324133/wii-u-will-learn-from-3ds-bitter-lesson-iwata-vows/

"We would like to show the final format of the Wii U at the E3 show next year. As we learned a bitter lesson with the launch of the Nintendo 3DS, we are trying to take every possible measure so that the Wii U will have a successful launch."

The lies start and end with Nintendo. Do I blame the publishers for pulling out after Nintendo promised them a strong launch and then didn't do a damn thing to ensure it? Let's see, they could either keep their "promise" to a liar and possibly end up with financial ruin, or not.

I don't blame them one bit, nor do I feel "foolish." Why? Because I was smart enough to know what was going to happen beforehand, and I *didn't* buy a half baked underpowered console with no hard drive space and limited online functionality at launch.

The excuse is "Nintendo tries to exert an iron grip over game development." It's been true since the NES days when Nintendo only let publishers publish a limited number of games per year. Companies HATE working with Nintendo. The reach of systems like the Wii made it profitable enough to suffer through that relationship. Now that the Wii U is a failure developers don't even need to think about it.

Looks like these developers totally disagree with your uncited claims. And that's just a sample.

It's sad, you just rail on how betrayed you felt about companies lying to you and here you are believing everything they say again. Psst - IT'S CALL PR.

Since you love spamming links, here's one for you:
http://operationrainfall.com/why-do-third-parties-hate-nintendo/

....Did you seriously just link vgchartz and pretend it's accurate?

Did you seriously just ignore numbers because they come from a site whose figures you disagree with, while providing no actual evidence to either dismiss their validity or to prove the contrary?

Yes, vgchartz is such a laughable "source" that anyone quoting it as factual deserved to be dismissively ignored and their argument not even considered. And I'll be doing that here.

Even Mario 3D World which is a near 10/10 game isn't doing it.

Actually, it totally is. Estimates are 220k units in November (most of which came from the last week of Nov, when the game released) and almost 500k units in December. Both of which are HUGE leaps above their sales figures for the months prior. It's hard to argue that the game didn't help sell units unless you're just blindly refusing to acknowledge the data.

Actually, it totally isn't:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-stock-nosedives-on-poor-wii-u-sales/1100-6417202/

The game didn't save the console as Nintendo hoped. They are not competing with the real next gen consoles. The game did NOT sell as many consoles as Nintendo told everyone it was going to. That is a FACT, one you cannot dispute.

 

[Thanatos2k]

The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

The logic is simple.

1. Link to the Past is the best Zelda game.

2. Link Between Worlds is Link to the Past, but BETTER.

3. Thus, Link Between Worlds is the best Zelda game.

If you disagree with the first premise, you got problems.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Are you one of those people who thought the Wii is just as good as the PS3/360 also and it was all the developer's faults that the games didn't look as good?

Do I need to pull out a link where EA tested Frostbite 2 on the Wii U and it couldn't perform? Theoretical specs always fall apart when people try to get code running on it in the real world.

http://nintendoeverything.com/15-ea-games-are-going-to-skip-wii-u-due-to-its-lack-of-support-for-frostbite-3/

Your article is grossly out of date.

EA backtracked on those claims shortly after making them.

So you're now trying to quote measurably false information to validate your opinion? I guess it's a step up from no evidence at all, but not much of one.

And yet, there's nothing there about the performance, which still sucks, and is still the reason EA is skipping most of the development off the Wii U.

Well you clearly let Nintendo off the hook

No I didn't. I never said Nintendo doesn't deserve any blame. I said that it's stupid to put all of the blame on Nintendo, as you're doing.

It's Nintendo's console. Of course they're to blame for the specs, the hardware, the price, the online functionality, and which first party games are available for it and when. Which as you've struggled hard to establish are what drives sales of Nintendo's consoles. So yeah, Nintendo is almost all to blame.

The lies start and end with Nintendo.

Except as I've evidenced before, they clearly don't.

"Nu uh!" Nice comeback there.

Do I blame the publishers for pulling out after Nintendo promised them a strong launch and then didn't do a damn thing to ensure it?

Pssst, "strong launch" means "good line up of games". Which is impossible if the devs promising those games don't deliver them. So you've just invalidated your own argument.

First party games. You've just validated my argument. None of those links you put out previously were companies promising LAUNCH LINEUP GAMES. No one failed to deliver on promises of game releases at or near launch, EXCEPT NINTENDO. Once the launch came and went and it was clear the console was where games go to die and Nintendo's system selling games were YEARS AWAY, people pulled out. It's completely logical.

It's sad, you just rail on how betrayed you felt about companies lying to you and here you are believing everything they say again. Psst - IT'S CALL PR.

Since you love spamming links, here's one for you:
http://operationrainfall.com/why-do-third-parties-hate-nintendo/

Ahem....

The Pretentious Opinionist is a column dedicated to my opinion and speculation. It does not represent oprainfall as a whole, nor the opinions of other staff members, nor does it necessarily have any basis in fact. It merely represents my possibly naive notion that people might be interested in what I have to say.

You're not even trying.

Um, what? It's an opinion column. You do know anyone stating the reasons why 3rd parties hate Nintendo is going to be AN OPINION, right?

The intellectually dishonest debate tactics continue.

Yes, vgchartz is such a laughable "source" that anyone quoting it as factual deserved to be dismissively ignored and their argument not even considered. And I'll be doing that here.

And your evidence that vgchartz is a bad source is....where, exactly?

Good god. Here, let me make it nice and simple for you. Go to Google. Type "vgchartz inaccurate" into the box and click the search button. Did you know on neogaf people who post vgchartz links are instantly banned? It's that pathetic a source. You already got raked over the coals by everyone else for posting flawed sources, why are you obsessed with another one?

Actually, it totally isn't:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-stock-nosedives-on-poor-wii-u-sales/1100-6417202/

That report doesn't dismiss the articles I gave. Like, at all. I'm not even sure why you linked it, except to try and make it look like you actually looked up sources of information this time around when it's rather obvious you didn't.

The game didn't save the console as Nintendo hoped.

Of course not, one game can't save a console. Which is why I said that it'd be up to future games to continue that momentum. Are you actually paying attention to anything I say, or just sort of making up your own fictional argument to argue against?

Wii Sports sold a console. So are you just going to ignore history and continue with "your own fictional argument"?

They are not competing with the real next gen consoles. The game did NOT sell as many consoles as Nintendo told everyone it was going to. That is a FACT, one you cannot dispute.

Of course they're not. When did I argue that they were? Go ahead, find the quote of me claiming such. I'll wait.

What are you even arguing about? Do you even remember? I stated what would be necessary to "turn the console around." Like the 3DS.

Selling some more units after a game came out is not turning the console around. You do know that, right? Why did you even start arguing with me, do you just like acting out?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

yeah i mentioned that one and regardless the previous red factions also featured destructible terrain

Yes, previuos versions did feature it, however they done it very poorly and seem to abandon the concept couple levels in. and since you asked for good destructible enviroment, Guerilla is the one to go. I never played battlefield 3 but i heard you can take down whole hotels there with enough granade launcher ammo so if thats true that would qualify too i guess.

we have different definitions of innovation then

Yes we do. I am using the official definition [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovation]
"1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced."

dude you totally should, atleast if you have any passing interest on strategy games

I agree. however my current list called "Games to play when time available" consists of 167 games (finished one yesterday!), so that may not be as easy as it sounds. Strategy is my favourite genre.

ANYWAYS, yes the old X-COM made good use of destructible environments

Looks like that brings it to 3 games total.

like i said we have different definitions, but if thats yours, then destructible environments go a looong way back, they didnt start last gen

i consider an innovation in GAMING something new that starts a trend

 

[Thanatos2k]

And yet, there's nothing there about the performance, which still sucks, and is still the reason EA is skipping most of the development off the Wii U.

Er, no, did you read that link? They clearly say that Frostbite 3 works on the console, but that they're not prioritizing production on the Wii U anyways. And we know why that's the case because they said in an earlier press release that they'd start making games for the console again if the console's sales improved.

I know you're not a programmer, so I'll let you know - there is a huge difference between "works" and "performs well."

Frostbite 2 and 3 may "work" but they cannot perform well enough to release the same games on the platform without extensive optimization work (if they'll run well at all), hence why EA no longer considers the development work necessary to port games a priority.

It's Nintendo's console. Of course they're to blame for the specs, the hardware, the price, the online functionality, and which first party games are available for it and when. Which as you've struggled hard to establish are what drives sales of Nintendo's consoles. So yeah, Nintendo is almost all to blame.

No, they're not "almost all to blame" either. Repetition doesn't make you any more correct.

Saying "you're wrong!" and then providing no actual reason why doesn't make you correct. It's not even an argument actually. This seems common amongst the things you post. Nintendo failed to launch the console properly, without an acceptable first party game lineup, without an acceptable online component (multiplayer and digital distribution), with marketing that was confusing to consumers, and with underpowered hardware that was harder to develop for than that of its competition. Those are the facts. No amount of off-topic links you post are going to refute that reality.

First party games. You've just validated my argument. None of those links you put out previously were companies promising LAUNCH LINEUP GAMES. No one failed to deliver on promises of game releases at or near launch, EXCEPT NINTENDO. Once the launch came and went and it was clear the console was where games go to die and Nintendo's system selling games were YEARS AWAY, people pulled out. It's completely logical.

Uh....wait, so you think that the console has absolutely no third-party games? That no one actually fulfilled their promise to put out a game on the Wii U on launch? Because....I'm not really sure how many more obviously false statements you can make before you reach critical mass, so you may want to chill for a bit.

What are you talking about? What are you even arguing about? We were talking about Nintendo's promises to launch the console properly, remember? And their promises to not have huge gaps between first party releases, remember? Stay on topic, please.

What amuses me is that you've almost entirely 180'd your original argument. Before, it was "first-party games can't save the console", and now you're openly admitting that the console relies heavily on its first-party games in order to succeed.

Because it's already dead. They needed the first party titles at launch to sell consoles to entice the third parties to develop for it, producing a healthy console lineup. They failed. Now they need to get the consoles out there in any way possible to get the third parties to even look at them. Hence the steps I outlined in my original post to try to turn it around, namely a price drop and giving up on the tablet controller which also is driving away 3rd party development. More frequent first party releases to sell more consoles wouldn't hurt either! But they're already in catch up mode, and I don't think they're going to be able to ever catch up if their attitude doesn't change, and going by the things they've said lately (and their disgusting foray into mobile games) it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Do you really dispute those things I just said? Or are you one of those internet debate legends who just likes arguing and will focus only on trying to pick apart specific lines while ignoring the actual points being made?

Um, what? It's an opinion column. You do know anyone stating the reasons why 3rd parties hate Nintendo is going to be AN OPINION, right?

Except, you know, the actual words of those third party devs. Because they would probably know why they did it. Just sayin'.

Hmm, which are worth more, words, or actions? Just sayin'

And a lot of them have already said why. It's because the console isn't selling. Which leads into a self-feeding cycle of stupidity that nearly killed the 3DS for the longest time: console isn't selling, so we don't make games, which ensures that the console continues not to sell, and so on.

The 3DS had no competition, so eventually the third parties decided that there was enough consoles out there to justify development. (After Nintendo cut the price, bought more 3rd party development, released more system-selling first party games, and gave up on the 3D gimmick).

The Wii U won't have that same luxury. Hell, they had a one year head start on the other consoles and frittered it away.

Good god. Here, let me make it nice and simple for you.

No, it is your job to prove my sources inaccurate, not mine. So either do it, or leave it be. I'm not interested in playing games.

Did you forget the giant hole that got ripped through your "sources" by all the other posters? Give me a break. And now you're quoting vgchartz. You're not worth it.

Wii Sports sold a console. So are you just going to ignore history and continue with "your own fictional argument"?

Haha, what? Are you serious? Are you really gonna claim that Wii Sports was the sole reason for the console's strong sales?

Compare the sales of those games to the amount of consoles sold. Wii Sports has more sales than all of them put together. Yes, Wii Sports sold the console to non-gamers. That's the whole story of the Wii's success! Is this some kind of historical revisionism?

Selling some more units after a game came out is not turning the console around.

Uh, yes it is. Who says they have to compete with PS4 or Xbone sales, besides you? Because, they don't. All they have to do is get the console to start turning a profit....which is not necessarily all that difficult. The console's barely being sold at a loss right now, so they can turn an approximate profit with a few solid titles.

Oh I see, now you're moving the goal posts. Suddenly being the market leader compared with the other consoles, like they were with the Wii and the DS and the 3DS isn't the goal.

You'll say anything to try and twist things in your favor. I'm done with you.

 

[Coolblue]

Yahtzee, just review the fucking game and get it over with.