Okay, let's just pretend I haven't already said, "I'd hope he had some time to familiarise himself with the game and didn't go in completely cold, which would be awkward, but that's quite possible, and could well explain it. Basically he hadn't acclimatised to the non-native positioning or relating his motions to the screen," and I'm incapable of understanding that...I'm done dude. You clearly are avoiding my point in any manner possible.
But I never said that he should be perfect, and in fact this whole argument wasn't ever really about how well he should have done as much as it is about whether it's fair to expect certain things. You have talked as if such expectations are completlely illogical, rather than logical but flawed. That gets my goat, yet having explained the thinking process as to why it's is fair to expect a relationship between real-life experience and game performance based on game simulation quality, especially for the less thoughtful populace at large, you still don't get it, perhaps because you don't appear to actually read the full number of my posts on this given that you missed the above recognition by me early on that there are game limits.
I never said it would, absolutely. Only that it gives an advantage. I notice you ignore all my other examples like the GT5 pod. The closer you get to reality, the easier it is to play the game based on real life experience. Yes or no?Just because someone can play TT, doesn't mean that they can hop in and deal with something as abstract as "augmented reality".
If yes, then we can evaluate how close a game is to reality by how well a real-life expert manages to do with the game. If it's a perfect match, like a flight sim, they'll be perfect. If it's a close match, like GT5, they may need a little time to adjust to no depth perception but they'll do well. If it's completely abstract like Wii Tennis, real life experience counts for nought.
Like always, it's not 'wild and baseless.' It's just you can't follow the argument. I'm glad this discussion is done because it was silly!Simply writing it off as "oh everyone should be able to do it because that's the purpose" is silly. Clearly Sony has taken this in to multiple directions, with some games reflecting accessibility, and some games being extremely deep, requiring more familiarity. You're simply writing off everything else in favor of your own view point that somehow, this guy who may have never played a video game in his life, should be able to just jump in and destroy this guy. That's so wild and baseless I can't even begin to take it seriously.