I wish that was what he was trying to say. Reread it:MrPopo wrote:I don't think he was calling Sega a failure based on artistic merit, but simply as a business. Sega got out of the console business because it was losing them all kinds of money. That's the definition of failure.Original_Name wrote:[Um, I'm not trying to add kindle to the fire here, but are sales figures REALLY a logical gauge by which to measure the quality of a work of art?
"Seriously, besides the Genesis, what has Sega really done?". This implies that Sega never did anything of worth after the Sega Genesis? What, because the Dreamcast didn't SELL well? That means that Rez, Shenmue, Jet Grind Radio, Phantasy Star Online, and Samba De Amigo weren't worthwhile because they didn't SELL well? Nevermind that Rez cohesively implemented Kandinsky's theory of synthesaesia into a video game in order to stimulate gamers visually, aurally, and cognitively all at once; that Shenmue was a multi-million dollar project which culminated in one of the most gripping, immersive video gaming experiences ever crafted; that Jet Grind Radio ushered in a new graphical style which is still utilized in video games a decade later, even by the likes of Nintendo; that Phantasy Star Online was the very first mainstream console MMORPG, helping to pave the way for broad-scale online video games on home consoles; that Samba De Amigo utilized motion controls, an innovation not fully explored until a decade after Sega's death with Nintendo's very own Wii. To say one is inferior to the other for reasons so goddamn irrelevant as sales figures is deplorable! Sega was a failure because the mass consumer market ignored their innovations? In my eyes, true success is not measured by revenue, it's measured by progress. While Sega's progress cannot be efficiently measured by the size of their wallets at the end of the day, simply noting their countless innovations and relentless drive to explore their personal creativity in the face of certain economic failure is what makes them a success in my eyes. So they were poorly managed by the suits up top; so the the mass market failed to catch-on: excellent points when comparing the strengths of the company in a debate of economics, but wholly worthless in a debate of which was the best video game company. So you like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, and Pokemon better than Sonic, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon, Ecco, Jet Grind Radio, and Phantasy Star - that's perfectly fine! I just personally think that this guy should judge which company he feels is superior using the criteria of his own personal preferences rather than the status quo's collective preference.the King wrote: So, you mean during the Genesis years? Seriously, besides the Genesis, what has Sega really done?
I'm a fan of both, probably more so Nintendo, but I really don't get this whole love affair with Sega. I'm a huge Genesis fan, but everything after was a failure, whereas Nintendo hasn't gone anywhere and is currently winning the current console war.
Dude, it's been established that we're looking at this from a business perspective. That's what he means.Original_Name wrote:I wish that was what he was trying to say. Reread it:MrPopo wrote:I don't think he was calling Sega a failure based on artistic merit, but simply as a business. Sega got out of the console business because it was losing them all kinds of money. That's the definition of failure.Original_Name wrote:[Um, I'm not trying to add kindle to the fire here, but are sales figures REALLY a logical gauge by which to measure the quality of a work of art?
"Seriously, besides the Genesis, what has Sega really done?". This implies that Sega never did anything of worth after the Sega Genesis? What, because the Dreamcast didn't SELL well? That means that Rez, Shenmue, Jet Grind Radio, Phantasy Star Online, and Samba De Amigo weren't worthwhile because they didn't SELL well? Nevermind that Rez cohesively implemented Kandinsky's theory of synthesaesia into a video game in order to stimulate gamers visually, aurally, and cognitively all at once; that Shenmue was a multi-million dollar project which culminated in one of the most gripping, immersive video gaming experiences ever crafted; that Jet Grind Radio ushered in a new graphical style which is still utilized in video games a decade later, even by the likes of Nintendo; that Phantasy Star Online was the very first mainstream console MMORPG, helping to pave the way for online video games on consoles; that Samba De Amigo utilized motion controls, and innovation not fully explored until a decade later with Nintendo's very own Wii. To say one is inferior to the other for reasons so goddamn irrelevant as sales figures is deplorable! Sega was a failure because the mass consumer market ignored their innovations? In my eyes, true success is not measured by revenue, it's measured by progress. While Sega's progress cannot be efficiently measured by the size of their wallets at the end of the day, simply noting their countless innovations and relentless drive to explore their personal creativity in the face of certain economic failure is what makes them a success in my eyes. So they were poorly managed by the suits up top; so the the mass market failed to catch-on: excellent points when comparing the strengths of the company in a debate of economics, but wholly worthless in a debate of which was the best video game company. So you like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, and Pokemon better than Sonic, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon, Ecco, Jet Grind Radio, and Phantasy Star - that's perfectly fine! I just personally think that this guy should use more effective criteria to judge which company he feels is superior.the King wrote: So, you mean during the Genesis years? Seriously, besides the Genesis, what has Sega really done?
I'm a fan of both, probably more so Nintendo, but I really don't get this whole love affair with Sega. I'm a huge Genesis fan, but everything after was a failure, whereas Nintendo hasn't gone anywhere and is currently winning the current console war.
Listen, I'm not trying to turn this into a flame-war, because that would be incredibly stupid given the nature of this forum. I'm just sick of hearing "Nintendo > Sega, because Sega was more poorly managed". The argument doesn't make any sense in the context of whom made better video games.
What the hell is the point of pointing out something that everyone already knows, particularly if it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion? Everyone knows Nintendo fared better from a business standpoint, but what does that have to do with the OP's question of which company he personally prefers? If the argument were, "Which company had better sales?" it wouldn't be an argument at all, it would be an unanimous agreement! The OP asked which company floats your boat, not which floats more people's boat. Furthermore, his question of what Sega had "really" done after the Genesis clearly exposes the fact that he's implemented the "business" non-issue of the matter into his criteria for what makes a company "good" to the point that apparently he believes that any action enacted by a company is worthless if it does not generate sales.Dylan wrote: Dude, it's been established that we're looking at this from a business perspective. That's what he means.
High sales > success
Low sales > failure
The quality of the games on other consoles is not the issue, it's what worked for the general public.
I agree, Original_Name. It was a question of which game company you preferred, not about who made more profit.Original_Name wrote:What the hell is the point of pointing out something that everyone already knows, particularly if it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion? Everyone knows Nintendo fared better from a business standpoint, but what does that have to do with the OP's question of which company he personally prefers? If the argument were, "Which company had better sales?" it wouldn't be an argument at all, it would be an unanimous agreement! The OP asked which company floats your boat, not which floats more people's boat. Furthermore, his question of what Sega had "really" done after the Genesis clearly exposes the fact that he's implemented the "business" non-issue of the matter into his criteria for what makes a company "good" to the point that apparently he believes that any action enacted by a company is worthless if it does not generate sales.Dylan wrote: Dude, it's been established that we're looking at this from a business perspective. That's what he means.
High sales > success
Low sales > failure
The quality of the games on other consoles is not the issue, it's what worked for the general public.
Check out my sale thread below, NeoGeo MVS carts & Arcade gear wanted!:Niode wrote:Send him a dodgy cheque. Make it out to Scammy McScammerson.
Calm down. Also, I believe you were the one who started this argument.Original_Name wrote:What the hell is the point of pointing out something that everyone already knows, particularly if it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion? Everyone knows Nintendo fared better from a business standpoint, but what does that have to do with the OP's question of which company he personally prefers? If the argument were, "Which company had better sales?" it wouldn't be an argument at all, it would be an unanimous agreement! The OP asked which company floats your boat, not which floats more people's boat. Furthermore, his question of what Sega had "really" done after the Genesis clearly exposes the fact that he's implemented the "business" non-issue of the matter into his criteria for what makes a company "good" to the point that apparently he believes that any action enacted by a company is worthless if it does not generate sales.
You wanted to argue which was more successful. We've given a perfectly reasonable argument as to why the later sega consoles weren't successful. Then, when we point this out, you flip the argument and say that this doesn't have to do with general success in face of personal taste, yet you argued for the general success of the consoles in previous posts.Original_Name wrote:Um, I'm not trying to add kindle to the fire here, but are sales figures REALLY a logical gauge by which to measure the quality of a work of art? I say that the greater artist is the one who took more risks and actively attempted to innovate in their medium of art regardless of circumstance, not the one who had greater sales figures. I mean, is the person who wrote the Twilight books really a better author than Franz Kafka or Allen Ginsberg just because the books sold better? I think if you're going to try and justify a preference between the two, it should be on the basis of which company's games and motives you enjoyed more as opposed to which one faired better on the mass-marketplace.
