Forums → Games → What's Wrong With Nintendo?
| 66 | 11636 |
It seems like everyone hates the Wii and all other Nintendo products.
I want to know why, in all its generality.
Persuade me.
- 66 Replies
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
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.
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
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. >_
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.
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.
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.
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.
2.) I'd argue that people buy their video game consoles to, you know, play video games.
Yes..but if the game is forced upon you when buying the console..that shouldn't count towards the games sales/give it a title of best selling game of all time
The reason I dont like the Wii is because it took all the good nintendo games and made them into some game where you had to use your hands and move your body and ultimately look like a *******
All my favorite games ended up turning into garbage after the Wii came out.
I used to love Super Mario World and Mario bros but then everything turned into some kid nonsense where everything had to be morally right in some way and I just didnt care for it.
Story lines ended up getting weird and you could tell that nintendo was running out of ideas.
Like luigis mansion and Mario sunshine, obviously they were scraping the bottom there.
It ended up like this
Best
NIntendo game: Mario Bros 3 then the equivalent now is New Super Mario Bros and its just messed up and way harder then the normal mario bros
Super Nintendo: Super Mario World and Donkey Kong Country was the best
the new donkey Kong is pretty lame and there was a dispute with rare and nintendo and rare left. And the way I see it is DKC was all rare and you cant have a Donkey Kong without rare.
Nintendo 64: Super Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie: Since banjo Kazooie is on the Xbox now its pretty sweet. But ever since they threw Wario into Mario 64 I was like WTF a normal evil character greedy gold hungry guy now is trying to stop Bowser. WTF I started to hate all the cross-overs that began to happen in the nintendo world.
Game Cube: Super Smash Bros Melee was my favorite. Probably the only game I liked to play on the gamecube
All the handheld games like the DS and Gameboy (advance, sp whatnot) the only games I ever really liked to play were the remakes of originals like Mario World and Mario Bros. But I did like Warioland 3 and 4 they were awesome. LIke normal mario but darker and not so much for kids
Yes..but if the game is forced upon you when buying the console..that shouldn't count towards the games sales/give it a title of best selling game of all time
The game's not free, you know. It's obviously included in the price. Therefore, if you buy the bundle, you buy the game that's included with the bundle, which should count for it's sales.
If someone didn't want the bundle, they wouldn't have bought the thing in the first place.
Not to mention it kept selling even after other bundles were released, which tells out quite a bit.
Sure we can, we just can't objectively decide what "title quality" even is.
We can't discuss something we can't even agree on a definition for. That's literally impossible. If you want to twist words enough you can argue that any game isn't a good game and this whole discussion is pointless.
It's better to talk about "desirability" or something like that then. And both sales and reviews have to do with that. My point being that loads of very desirable games for a majority of the community weren't available for the Wii.
The game's not free, you know. It's obviously included in the price. Therefore, if you buy the bundle, you buy the game that's included with the bundle, which should count for it's sales.
But it was the only option if I wanted a Wii early on, which accounts for the great majority of those Wii Sports sales. People were buying the Wii, Wii Sports happened to tag along.
Nothing is wrong with Nintendo. They just make games with everyone in mind. Other games please a smaller crowd more, but Nintendo pleases a large crowed decently.
You must be logged in to post a reply!