Forums

ForumsVideo Games

What's Wrong With Nintendo?

Posted Jan 1, '13 at 2:47am

stickupkid97

stickupkid97

18 posts

I love Nintendo games but im sticking with my xbox. I can tell im outgrowing Nintendo fast.

 

Posted Jan 1, '13 at 10:39am

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

and that they're nowhere to be seen on the Wii.


The sequels will be seen on the Wii U. The Wii U already has CoD: BO 2 and, DS3, and ACIII. Another CoD is being planned for a Wii U exclusive. That kind of makes it irrelevant now.

That's gonna happen again with the Wii U, mark my words.


Read my last reply. It isn't happening now.

We're gonna get another generation of PlayStation/XBox within two years at the most, and then boom, the Wii U is on life-support, relying on first-party games for its only highlights.


Both are planned for 2015ish. The Wii U still has a good two years to get strong, and, mark my words, by then it will be the most desirable console.

Oh, and party games? Really? My Wii U has enough power to handle ACIII much better than my Xbox. On my Xbox, Multiplayer tends to lag, screens full of enemies makes it lag, swimming makes it lag. On my Wii U, it runs perfectly fine. It has the power to handle the next-gen games, and, believe me, because it doesn't have the conventional controller doesn't mean it'll end up going around party games. The Wii U actually focuses very little on movement.

The WiiU is a decent competitor for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 at best, both of which are at the end of their life cycles.


2 more years doesn't sound like an end.

The WiiU is already doing poorly when it comes to third-party games. I'm not sure if there is a single multi-platform game that is coming out on the Wii U. Dead Space 3, Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinite, none of those games are on Wii U. Neither are Tomb Raider and the new Metal Gear. It's not a shock that Wii U sales are already lacking.


They haven't been adapted yet. Dead pace 3 will be out on Wii U pretty soon. Tomb Raider isn't even developing anything new right now. Otherwise, the next addition of those series will most likely be on the Wii U. It wouldn't be very efficient to adapt the games when you can just adapt the next one.

That being said, it wouldn't be difficult for Nintendo to skyrocket sales. "New SSB announced, Wii U exclusive." Or "Next Zelda game only on Wii U." I'm sure something like that is in the making right now.


I explained this enough. Go back and read for yourself. xD
 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 5:45pm

KentyBK

KentyBK

556 posts

Time to reply to a few things before this topic dies back down for a few months.

This is due to the Wii's lack of processing hardware. However, we all know that graphics to not make the game. Games that prioritize in graphics above everything else tend.to.be.terrible.games.


I find it interesting that every time this subject comes up, people immediatly go for the extreme of "graphics don't make a game" or "only the gameplay matters" when that's simply not true.
A game is the sum of its parts, so every part should be considered equal. When one of the parts isn't on par, the whole thing suffers. It's part of the reason why a game like Dwarf Fortress, despite its rich gameplay, can seem so overwhelming to so many people.
Not to mention it's a visual medium, so dismissing graphics outright seems kinda silly.

If there's anything to be seen from last generation, the WiiU will still triumph over both combined.


And if there's anything to be seen from the generation before that, it won't.

The Wii's motion ideals failed due to Nintendo's having to pry into every game and input motion controls into games with controls that can do fine without it. They believed that every game must require motion controls, though there are games that just.don't.need.them (read: most). So what did games get from this? Controls that could be met by flicking your wrist sitting in the chair, when buttonmapping would be just fine and annoying button commands that the game demanded you absolutely MUST point at the screen, lest you sit there. THAT was their failure.


No. The last game that seriously tried to push motion controls was Wii Sports Resort and the Motion+. After that the whole thing fizzled out pretty quickly. If anything, their failure lies in just dropping their new direction instead of making something of the massive potential they had.

The Wii was exciting and anticipated. The Wii changed the way many people look at games, changed gaming itself by implementing motion controls in a previously unheard-of scale, appealed to scores of casual buyers who'd never get either of the other two consoles.


Not only that, but it also made games accessible to a whole lot of people. It's not a coincidence that the Wii shares quite a few similarities with the NES and the Wiimote was styled after normal TV remotes.

Better yet, name the best-looking console games of this generation. I assure you they're mostly extremely well-reviewed games like Skyrim, Gears of War 3, Battlefield 3, Uncharted 3, and that they're nowhere to be seen on the Wii.


Being well-reviewed doesn't prove anything. Wii Sports has a 76 on Metacritic, which is kind of a laughable score, considering it's the best-selling video game of all time.

"New SSB announced, Wii U exclusive."

They already did that, actually. But considering how long these things take to actually develop, we probably won't see them for a while. Having said that, I'm not convinced either SSB or Zelda would help "skyrocket" the Wii U.

The sequels will be seen on the Wii U.

There's literally no way to know this. What if the new generation consoles are too powerful to port them over to the Wii U? It'd be like the Gamecube all over again.

Read my last reply. It isn't happening now.

Read his post again. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future.

Both are planned for 2015ish. The Wii U still has a good two years to get strong, and, mark my words, by then it will be the most desirable console.


[citation needed]
You're literally pulling this from nowhere. And just saying it won't magically make it true.
There's a million different rumored release dates, some of which are as soon as the end of this year.

Oh, and party games? Really?

Whooooosh.

2 more years doesn't sound like an end.

[citation needed]

Tomb Raider isn't even developing anything new right now. Otherwise, the next addition of those series will most likely be on the Wii U.


Yes it is.No it won't.
 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 11:55pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,761 posts

Wii Sports has a 76 on Metacritic, which is kind of a laughable score, considering it's the best-selling video game of all time.


I don't think this is quite fair...saying as how Wii Sports was a package deal for a lot of Wii's
 

Posted Jan 4, '13 at 12:26am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

Who even listens to Metacritic anyways? They are one of the least reliable scoring systems for games.

My main problem with Nintendo is that they have become a company that pushes what ought to be optional peripheral components as the main selling point. Which are largely mandatory to play the games on the system. And never fully optimized.

The Wii had the Wii Remote which had really shoddy motion detection, and the they offered the Motion Plus for a premium fee to fix their initial errors. Yet not all games would recognize the addition of the peripheral to a peripheral, so you had to hope that the games you already owned would handle properly. or just go and buy new games that worked with the addition.
Then with the WiiU they add a massive controller with a screen on in. I'll admit that it is sorta neat that it 'sees' what is on screen and allows you to interact with it. Yet it is just another gimmick to sell units. Hell, it only has a 3 hour battery life on it before needing to be plugged in to charge. Has Nintendo finally realized they are nothing more than a casual gaming system as of late? It seems so.

I miss the days when Nintendo made really high-quality games that lasted through the trials of time. Which also happens to be the days when they made controllers, with buttons, that friggin' worked. >_

 

Posted Jan 4, '13 at 6:10am

KentyBK

KentyBK

556 posts

I don't think this is quite fair...saying as how Wii Sports was a package deal for a lot of Wii's


1.) So was Super Mario Bros. and everyone sure loves to praise that one.
2.) I'd argue that people buy their video game consoles to, you know, play video games.
3.) It wasn't in Japan.

Who even listens to Metacritic anyways? They are one of the least reliable scoring systems for games.


Publishers do, actually. And hardcore nerds that have to compare games by single numerical values. Both of which are part of the problem.
 

Posted Jan 4, '13 at 9:17am

fantasy4life

fantasy4life

1,937 posts

With Nintendo? There is nothing wrong with Nintendo. Where did you get that idea? Nintendo revolutionized gaming as we know it, and brings out amazing games and consoles so I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with Nintendo, quite the contrary.
If this is more aimed at the Nintendo Wii dispute, which a lot of "gamers" (and by gamers I mean 12 year olds or an older generation with the mental capacity of a twelve year old who are self proclaimed gamers even though they own one console and less then a dozen games, which of course mostly consists of COD games) say is the weaker console, I would just straight up laugh in their face.
While I'm not going to bore you with the specs between consoles (seriously, you can just google it if you're are that interested), I will say Nintendos Wii is the leading console in sales, which obviously says something.

 

Posted Jan 4, '13 at 1:13pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

Hey champ, if you are not going to make an actual post don't even bother hitting the "Submit" button. You can't just make vague and inflammatory comments then just tell people to look something up themselves.
In other words, don't be a fanboy.

 

Posted Jan 4, '13 at 1:51pm

ihsahn

ihsahn

431 posts

Both are planned for 2015ish. The Wii U still has a good two years to get strong, and, mark my words, by then it will be the most desirable console.
And then it's going to be too late. I don't think you get my point. It's going to need time to become a good console with a decent library, but by then, it's an obsolete, lesser console.
The Wii U is competing with seven-year old consoles.
You get that?

SEVEN.
By the end of the generation it's gonna be NINE.
Two years is a ridiculous lifespan for a console that essentially belongs to this generation. The other two have years of past titles over the Wii U. It's always going to be a lesser console.

Read my last reply. It isn't happening now.

Hence "will" happen. As in, future tense.

Oh, and party games? Really? My Wii U has enough power to handle ACIII much better than my Xbox. On my Xbox, Multiplayer tends to lag, screens full of enemies makes it lag, swimming makes it lag. On my Wii U, it runs perfectly fine. It has the power to handle the next-gen games, and, believe me, because it doesn't have the conventional controller doesn't mean it'll end up going around party games. The Wii U actually focuses very little on movement.

Massive facepalm.
The Wii U doesn't have the technical specs to compete with the next generation. It simply doesn't, that's a fact, look it up. It's competing with seven-year-old consoles. People even complain how it's CPU is too slow compared to the other two.
Literally nobody is talking about how much better ACIII or Batman look better on Wii U.

What they are talking about is the Wii U's shoddy interface, inconvenient online play and massive loading times.

I also don't think you understood what I meant by "first-party games".

Being well-reviewed doesn't prove anything. Wii Sports has a 76 on Metacritic, which is kind of a laughable score, considering it's the best-selling video game of all time.

If being well-reviewed doesn't prove anything, NOTHING does. We can't even talk about title quality if you're going to be like that. Being well-reviewed reflects an opinion that's maybe not mine or yours, but that's shared by a large portion of the gaming community.
 

Posted Jan 4, '13 at 3:33pm

KentyBK

KentyBK

556 posts

If being well-reviewed doesn't prove anything, NOTHING does. We can't even talk about title quality if you're going to be like that. Being well-reviewed reflects an opinion that's maybe not mine or yours, but that's shared by a large portion of the gaming community.


Not really. If anything, it represents the opinions of whatever people decided to review the game. If being well-reviewed actually DID prove anything, there'd be a correlation between a game's score and, say, it's sales or anything else. There isn't. There's games that are massive hits but get comparatively bad scores and there's critically acclaimed games that end up bombing miserably.

And no, game sales are not a perfect measure either. While I'd argue that any massively successful game got its success for a reason, I don't think a game not selling has to prove that it's bad.

In conclusion:
We can't even talk about title quality if you're going to be like that.


Sure we can, we just can't objectively decide what "title quality" even is.
 
Reply to What's Wrong With Nintendo?

You must be logged in to post a reply!