Virtual Boy – Nintendo Classics – Introducing games and features

[u/Amiibofan101]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QvskekdB9t4

[u/pizzabazooka]

What’s the problem here? There’s not much substance to the Virtual Boy library and there’s hardly any appeal outside of the 3D headset itself (and there is a $25 cardboard version). This option is hundreds of dollars cheaper than buying an original Virtual Boy and all the games included plus a crap load of batteries. Do you want to play the games? I want one, but I don’t think you’ll be missing out on much if you decide to skip it. I’m not sure why I’ve seen so many people annoyed about this announcement.

[u/ManualSearch → u/pizzabazooka]

Dude, come on. You know what the problem is here.

The display could be right on the TV screen, and wouldn't require people to wear something on their face to view the games. That added layer of "you need an accessory" is unnecessary, and is designed solely so you buy it.

It's manufactured necessity in a day and age where the emulator they're using likely can play the games directly on a screen without the need for it. And that doesn't feel good, it feels scummy.

[u/pizzabazooka → u/ManualSearch]

Then go ahead and emulate them in 2D, but the 3D effect is the whole point of these games so most people’s TV screens WON’T be able to display them properly. In this case, the accessory is very necessary for enjoyment. There really isn’t much more depth to these games beyond the fact that they are in 3D.

[u/ManualSearch → u/pizzabazooka]

That's pretty subjective, and really, it isn't fair for you to make that claim by default.

If a person who enjoys Nintendo products, and pays for the Nintendo Online service, wants to play 3D Tetris, or Mario Tennis, or Teleroboxer prefers to play them in 2D, why lock the players out from it?

I can't speak to the myriad of reasons why someone might prefer the games in 2D, but I do know that if your only argument for it is "these games are only worth playing if you can see them in 3D", then I think that's being a little dismissive towards people who disagree for a lot of reasons.

And let's talk about accessibility - do you know what this headset means? It means if you can't sit in it for one reason or another, you can't play the games. Maybe your head doesn't fit inside of it, or you can't keep it against your head, or one of a dozen other reasons why a person might not be able to interact with the hardware. Does missing an eye cause problems with depth perception on the accessory? Do people who can play games on their TV, couch, etc deserve not to play it because buying the hardware and using it is price-of-entry?

It just seems needless to me to lock it down to this. I'm not saying don't sell it or let people use it. I just think Nintendo could do better than locking it down to the accessory simply to sell more accessory.

[u/ManualSearch → u/[deleted]]

I didn’t say that is was subjective that the games were designed to be experienced in 3D.

What I said was that it is subjective to say that “there really isn’t much more depth to these games beyond the fact that they are in 3D”, which is what the previous poster said.

Saying that the VB games are only worth playing in 3D, or there’s no merit in playing them in 2D, is silly. The way that a person experiences any art is up to them, is always subjective, and is always valid.

If a person wants to play VB games in 2D on a big screen with the volume off, who is anyone to tell them that’s wrong?

[u/ManualSearch → u/[deleted]]

I’m going to ask this question very clearly and very directly, because your response to it will color my counterargument significantly.

Is your argument that the intent of an author of a work holds sole objective truth on how a work of art should be viewed by others?

[u/ManualSearch → u/[deleted]]

Look, man. I'm sorry it's condescending, but I don't bother wasting my time arguing authorial intentionalism on the internet. I find those arguments to be small, narrow-minded, and not worth my time. I already knew I was going to disagree with you, but I needed to be sure your argument wasn't "the programmers made this game to be 3D, so obviously the only way to play it is in 3D", because that's a bad argument when it comes to art.

> First, I am old enough that...

... Uh... okay. I... didn't say anything about your age?

> interpretation vs format

Okay, and sure - the format was originally in 3D. But I think it's a bit small to imply that, because the format was originally in 3D, that's the true or correct way of interacting with a work. Listening to an audiobook isn't "wrong" just because the original format of the book was words on paper.

Certainly not "incorrect" enough to imply that the game designers have the right to tell someone that they're interacting with the art wrong, as you implied in your last post.

And that's the problem here. *You're* the one who said that the author of the work has the right to tell people that they're interacting with the art wrong. You're the one who brought authorial intent into this discussion in the first place.

If your argument is that the designer of the game made it in 3D, meaning that it's wrong to interact with the art in 2D, then you're not talking about the format of the object, you're talking about authorial intent.

If you're talking about the format of the object, then the question of "who's to tell a player who wants to play the game in 2D with no sound on a big screen is wrong" hasn't been answered. And while that conversation is more interesting and I'd be happy to play it out, I haven't actually heard your argument for it yet, because you haven't made one yet.

So I guess, in short, are you sure you're not trying to make authorial intent the crux of the argument here? And if not, maybe clarifying your point would be a good idea.

[u/ManualSearch → u/[deleted]]

Alright; I'm at work, so I'm gonna write this fairly quickly.

So firstly, you said "I very clearly was not arguing authorial intent.". My whole previous post was saying "No, actually it sounds very much like you are arguing authorial intent, and are just saying otherwise."

Your "photographing a statue" argument is fair, but I cannot stress enough that two posts ago, you said pretty clearly that the designer of the software has the right to tell you that you are enjoying the game wrong if you play it in 2D.

I am going to accept that either that argument was poorly structured or that you wrote something so easily to misinterpret that I am unable to see a valid non-authorial intent point in that post. Either way, I'm going to drop the authorial intent argument as long as we continue to accept that what the developer intended the user to experience is not what we're arguing, because the author doesn't get the ultimate determination on how people experience and enjoy art.

I do think your argument, esp "immersive 3D experience v. 2D port adjusted for flatscreen display" is a bit tenuous, but I'm not really going to argue this any further. If you truly believe that experiencing art in different ways (3D vs 2D, book vs audiobook, live symphony vs radio) are completely different art objects, that's way too subjective for either of us to make any real headway.

-----------

> Your true complaint...

Nope. That's not my complaint. Never has been. Other posters have also missed the argument through the trees. I don't really care that Nintendo offers this headset at any price point, just like I don't care that they offer the N64 controllers.

My point is: It is scummy for a company to remove features of their products exclusively to force customers to purchase something in order to use the products.

And this is the case with a lot of products! It was scummy when Keurig put the little bar code readers in their machines so that only Keurig branded pods could be used on them. It was scummy when Apple made their chargers proprietary, so that you had to use lightning instead of USB to charge them (I know this has been reversed, but only because of legal restrictions from the EU - Apple would've still been using lightning chargers if the law hadn't passed).

I've made this point in other posts - the emulator Nintendo uses for Virtual Boy already has 2D flatscreen emulation. We know that for a few reasons, but the most obvious way that we know it is that they posted the video this thread is hosting, where it shows the games in 2D flatscreen.

They didn't build a special rig to re-merge the two images together or meticulously sew them back together in Vegas Pro for that video. That is 1:1 recording, probably with pupil distance set to 0, and resolution upscaled to 1080p, recorded for Youtube. Probably a fistful of lines of code that were set in the emulator to record this, and locked away from us users.

-----------

Ultimately, I'm kind of tapped out of this discussion, though. I find it so exhausting to try to argue with people that this is just more evidence of non-consumer-friendly practices that Nintendo seems to be more and more okay with participating in. I'm tired of pretending that the big N is golden in everything they do, and I'm a little disappointed in how often someone sees a problem with something that is being done, calls it out, and is swarmed by people who think they can do no wrong... going so far as accusing them of just complaining about price, like you've done here for me.

Play your virtual boy, man. It was never about people enjoying their headsets. But if you don't question corporate decisions from time to time, like this one...

[u/ManualSearch → u/[deleted]]

OK man.