Super Non-Stop Debate

The_Jaster wrote:

...is the shift from local towards online multiplayer a bad thing?

Ah - you've misread me.  I didn't say "the", I said "a".  Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm not talking about what is what's happening now, but a theoretical shift (that in many ways is similar to what I've seen, but isn't identical) where local multiplayer is pushed out by online.  And I'm wondering if this is a bad thing.

Possibly I'm trying too hard: the motion is essentially the same as, "This house would, if forced to choose, prefer to see more local multiplayer than online multiplayer."  So you can answer that one if you want (or abstain).


From those who take one side or another, it seems to boil down to "Local is better but often inaccessible." I'd agree, but at the same time, I feel that local is so much better than online, that the difference in accessibility doesn't make up for it.

I think an important element to consider with local/online multiplayer is our ages. I'm 28 and imagine many on this board are mid-20s to mid-30s. The time when I played a lot with friends was secondary school (1998-2003), and then at university. These are the times when we tend to have a lot more free time and can do memorable, all-night sessions. For me, it was the N64 and then later it was stuff like Pro Evo and the Smackdown games.

I moved away from my friend group, and now have a family so I actually have to arrange a night to play a game online with a friend. If I was 10 years older, this may not have been possible, and if I was 10 years younger, I may have just played with my friends through an Xbox Live Party or something, rather than staying the night at a friend's.

Online is definitely more convenient, and how I prefer to game now. But I'm glad I grew up with local multiplayer experiences that I'll never forget (completing Baldur's Gate 2 in co-op in one night, playing Silent Hill 4 in the dark with friends, and playing Pro Evo at uni with drinking rules).

Well I'm 23 and in a full time job but still stayed up to 5am last Friday round a friend's house playing games

I think the only game I play with said friend online is Monster Hunter, and that's always for a much shorter time than if we were playing locally.

balla wrote:

Possibly I'm trying too hard: the motion is essentially the same as, "This house would, if forced to choose, prefer to see more local multiplayer than online multiplayer." So you can answer that one if you want (or abstain).

Then I abstain on the grounds that I enjoy both equally & that if you have more local MP over online MP or vice versa you are basically limiting the types of games that can be made.

The choice is hugely difficult. Local multiplayer is the more fun by far but much more difficult to organise, as has been mentioned by many. With that in mind, I have to plump for on-line, but it is by the merest fraction of a whisker.

Alright, let's have a Mas-debate. Today's Mas-suggested motion is: This house believes that Nintendo have failed this generation with the Virtual Console. Mas, dunno if you want to start things off (or anyone else)?

I will and this actually come from Dead Lemon this debate as he posted that the Xbox One due to the Rare Replay collection will have more N64 games then the Wii U has.

The U will have been out 3 years this November and you compare it's VC line-up compared to the Wii's at the time and both would of needed to get roms working on them more so with the Wii with Turbo Grafx-16, Mega Drive games and knowing the Wii got them and the U having more power I was hoping we would get Saturn, Dreamcast & GameCube games on the VC when it was unveiled but we've had nothing.

The 3DS isn't much better either.

Nintendo unlike Sony and even more so then MS has history and a huge library of classics of there without tapping into SEGAs for instance, which aren't there on the 3DS or Wii U.

Nothing on this yet?  I wonder if that's because it's too one-sided a question for a debate - is there anyone who doubts that Ninty haven't buggered up the VC stuff?  There are five games - five games - on the N64 out on the Wii U's VC (link to list).  That's tripe.  The Wii had more than that - why not move them straight over?  And 9 DS games.  The first home console that can actually play DS games, and coming to the end of the third year of its life (which is possibly the penultimate year of its life), we've got 9 sodding games.

Meanwhile the 3DS has 10 GBA games available.  The Wii U has more than that - the 3DS has been out for longer and is a portable.  How does this make one iota of sense?

I'll end this post with one final comment.  When Mario Tennis (a brilliant game) was released on the US Virtual Console at around Wimbledon time, I said that Nintendo would be moronic not to release the game in the UK to coincide with Wimbledon.  I stand by that - could have had a mini-promotion.  Did they do this very obvious thing?  Did they ****.

This house believes that Nintendo have failed this generation with the Virtual Console.

I'm going to disagree. The 3DS VC has brought lots of Game Boy and GBC games back from the dead, including some of my favourite handheld games of ever (DK'94 and Link's Awakening, take bows (well, LA already has one)). On the home console front it would be hard to deny that things have not been good (whither GC, Nintendo? Whither?!), but the potential is there now that we can get Wii and DS games through the service. Besides, can we not still access all the VC content from the Wii?

But considering the 3DS is nearly 5 years old the VC on it seems a bit bare, I'm not saying there isn't good things on it as there is like the Oracles and same goes to the 3DS Classics what happened to them on the 3DS from Nintendo.

On the console, Iwata did say it takes time to get the roms to work with the Wii U but like I said they had to get all those games on Wii's to run on that and both systems share pretty much the same architecture and evn with the Cube that it can't be that difficult to get them to run on the Wii U.

But like you pointed out Zero I can still get the games via Wii Mode but would be much easier to get via Wii U's eShop. But I do actually own more VC titles on the Wii U then I ever did on the Wii.


Zero said the potential is there now that we can get Wii and DS games through the service, yes it is but as Balla said which is possibly the penultimate year of its life and that's the thing how many Wii VC games came out after the Wii U came out, it couldn't of many even none as if if the NX does come out holiday 2016 and then we look back at the Wii U to me the VC will be a massive failure from Nintendo that I hope they sort for the NX.

I'm with Zero on this, sure there could be lots more on there (I remember folk saying the same of the wii VC) but for me it has that quality over quantity & it had things like the 30th anniversary offerings also this time I think they rightly focused more on e shop/indie games for wii U.

The 3DS was definitely better than the Wii U, but I seriously feel that it could have done with more GBA games. I won't deny that the Zeldas are classy offerings, though.

One more thing - we've got DS games on the Wii U, but no Picross DS?

I'm surprised there aren't more games out on VC; I forget how long the console's been out now. Failed's a bit strong (or possibly not the best word to use) though.

Alright, let's take this to the next level. Everyone stay civil.

This house will (or would, given the choice) vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be leader of the Labour Party.

I've got to admit that I'm not the most political chap in the world: I pretty much stop at "environment good, fox-hunting bad". Nonetheless I'm "for". Give yer opinions!

I try to avoid political things, as people become enemies quite quickly.

But yes. All the people who have lined up against him are in the same venn diagram section as the one labelled "betrayed the people they were supposed to represent".

Yeah, I'm not the most politically minded of individuals either, but he seems like a solid choice and an actual chance at an alternative between the biggest two parties.

I'd love to hear a reasoned argument against his leadership though, as I'm not entirely clued into the campaign.

I've not been keeping up with the labour leadership either, but I did a quiz and my choice due to policies I agree with, is Liz Kendall who I've heard been described as very much like Blair.

This house will (or would, given the choice) vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be leader of the Labour Party.

The whole thing is fascinating. I don't pretend to be a political expert of any kind but Corbyn just seems to me to be furthering the politics of personality in the UK rather than actual politics. Someone different from the other candidates has thrown his hat into the ring and has dominated the Labour leader campaign story. I have doubts: some of his economics is enticing but impossible/factually incorrect and he has some sort of links with Hezbollah and Hamas.

What is most surprising is the sudden upswing in the number of registered Labour supporters who can vote for the leader. Whether this is people reinvigorated that Labour might be moving back left a bit, or saboteurs who think that installing Corbyn as leader will destroy the Labour Party's chances of winning the next election, remains to be seen.

Yes, I thought Mas might vote "aye" for exactly that reason! Not surprising you got Kendall, Mas - she's definitely meant to be the rightmost of the candidates.

Zero, I think there's something in what you say about personality. Compared to the other three media-groomed Blair-like candidates, Corbyn just seems sincere.

That said, there was an absolutely filthy Corbinfographic (I hope they called it that) that made my stomach churn through its misuse of statistics.

Well this needs a change of title

Spider-Man >>>>> Batman


There's your new debate subject matter!  


My case: Slightly similar origin stories, one goes through the trials of life and is a highly relatable and likeable person, the other is basically a nutter in a bat suit in a depressing as f*** world.

Spoiler:

You're right. (We don't have to counter the argument each time, right?) - Batman's superpower is "he has a machine that can do everything", so DC keep having to write stories akin to Andy's play session at the beginning of Toy Story: "I have a Forcefield Dog!" "I have a dinosaur that eats Forcefield Dogs!". Marvel's characters have only specific strengths, and therefore also many weaknesses.

I would argue that Batman has a more impressive rogue's gallery than Spider-Man. In addition, Batman has been going for longer and has therefore had more opportunity to produce iconic storylines (whether he has or not is up for de - whoops). Furthermore, the best Batman film (The Dark Knight, in my humble, unsubtle and often wrong opinion) is better than the best Spider-Man film (Spider-Man 2, I'd say). Following on from that, Batman video games of recent vintage have been excellent, whereas Spider-Man video games included Shattered Dimension (OK at best) and Edge Of Time ( ).

I was just going to say similar to Zero as Batman has better characters in his universe, films live action or animated (the killing joke out soon), TV show's especially the animated series and games.

Doctor Octopus, Kingpin, Venom >> Bat's rogue gallery  (Ignoring Green Goblin since Joker cancels him out with both being top rate villains)



On multimedia, I never said anything about that did I?  Just the heroes themselves!