@Wong_Fei_Hung said:
Firstly, I don't know who this person is and whether his "claim" that he worked for Nintendo as a QA is true, I also fail to see how he has proved this like others who have posted claim. How has he proved this?.
Secondly, it may well be he has never had access to this sort of diagnostic software, because his role simply doesn't require it. Wouldn't his role be to check software alongside quality control guidelines set my Nintendo, and nothing at the deeper code level?.
Although I think Hallinel has a good history of being an honest user of the site, yes, we can't 100% know whether his claims are true, even if they may seem very likely, and I agree with your point that he may just not have worked in the part of the company that would have dealt with code. That being said, if you're arguing that we can't take the things people say at face value, why do you expect people to believe the things you say? I don't meant that rhetorically, I mean that as a genuine question. Hallinel is at least trying to provide a solid source for his claims, something you've not done.
We must understand though that "technically enhanced" is a subjective term,
I know and agree, that's the problem, They're vague and intentionally so. No company would highlight flaws from a earlier version, it wouldn't look good. In light of what we know about the Japanese version, most people would have naturally assumed they were referring to the FPS, or do you think I'm wrong here?.
It's an attempt to deceive in my eyes. perhaps not a straight out "lie", but certainly deceptive.
It sounds like a lot of people would have assumed they were probably going to get a game with a good framerate, but I think it would have been unreasonable of anyone to think "This is definitely them promising a better framerate". I'm not sure if I'd call this deceptive, but I do think it's kind of terrible that they did put out a version with low framerate and hanging issues, especially when they were promising a technically enhanced version of the game.
It's impossible to say, it's all dependant on the contract in question.
I didn't say "all" developers create clauses in contract that protect them like this. what i do know is that companies don't take risks like this, no company would, they cover themselves legally at every corner
Your statements here seem to be contradictory. You start by saying that whether publishers would give themselves power to order patches varies from contract to contract, and that it's not all developers (I assume you mean publishers) who do this, but then immediately say no company would risk not giving themselves that power. Which of these is it?
Request or order, it's the same thing, order being demanding in light of an issue that appears.
The difference between a request and an order is the difference between asking and telling. With one you have a choice, with the other you don't.
this recent feature on Nintendo site alludes to some of these tests.
No it doesn't. I still fail to understand why these software tests you're talking about are so vital to the argument you're making, but all that article says is that they've done hardware tests on the Wii U, it doesn't begin to talk about any kind of software tests they do for certification of Wii games.
I don't claim to have insight into the inner working of Atlus, Nintendo or any other company, I simply made educated guesses given the knowledge I have on what I know they do at particular facilities in Japan.
In addition, I also have very good friends who work in the industry, both in the development and media, who give me further insight. I merely connect the dots, I don't claim to work for such companies.
Actually, you were claiming to have insight into the inner workings of these companies, and with the arguments you've presented here still are. You did not present your arguments as educated guesses, but rather facts to the point where you were directly denying the claims of people who said you were wrong, even when they claimed to have insider industry knowledge. The fact that you have friends who work in the industry does lend at least some merit to your claims, but you admit openly you make guesses and fill in blanks when you don't have the answers, and we cannot criticise companies or have logical debates about things based on guesses, it just doesn't work.
Log in to comment