nintendo admits why they sucked at 2009

okami didn't sell well to begin with so why would selling it on the wii going to be any different?! muramasa didn't do so well on the wii and neither did odin sphere on the ps2, so what was different?! and after some of the failures of the games on the ps2, it still didn't stop third party developers from leaving nor did it stop them from making more games? but the wii is a different story.

let me ask you, is the ngage good?!
when people buy something, they are buying it for a reason.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/dear-readers-sales-of-games-do-not-indicate-quality.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

havok is used on smash brother wii. you say that street fighter 4 was chopped to make it for the iphone. why would they do that but not for the wii?! developers have done such moves like that with resident evil 4 from gamecube to ps2, but why not the wii as well? like with dante's inferno, it was made for the psp but not for the wii. why would they make the effort to make it for the iphone but not the wii?!

how do you explain the sales of resident evil 4 wii? i am very curious as to how many sales did resident evil 4 had on the iphone.

during e3 2006, nintendo had the wii on the show floor and it was months before the console was released. was it still in development?! accordindly, it was still in development. we saw people playing with the remote, and even saw what the system will look like. but as it happens, it's still in development. so i guess the sony move is still underdevelopment. i'm still certain that even months before the wii was released, maybe even a week before it was released, heck it might as well before the store even opened, it was still in development.

 

Read this, and this, and this and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this.

Realize that my last post can just be repeated and still be applied to your post and make total and complete sense. Along with my other posts here and the other posts anyone else made against you. Seriously ultra, this debate has been and it always will be, about your stupidity and stubbornness to not look at our posts and analyze and understand them. You may look at our posts but you sure as hell don't understand them, because if you understood it, you would be making new points, not just repeating the same crap you have been repeating since September 25th.

I mean, xelados makes great points on defending his stance and he does it well. While you do not. I have my own share of stubbornness to deal with, but you take it to a whole new level. While I like a good debate, this isn't one, this is just a soap box so you can further display your idiocy concerning you blowing Nintendo and not making any sense.

By god, I do love it when you reply, question what I say and then put a link defending what I just said. I should just gather every post that Hypr has concerning you and copy and paste it just to show you that you're repeating shit. I've grown tired of it and in no doubt in my mind, everyone else is too.

Also inb4 you say something along the lines that people will just personally attack the opposition instead of debating them, you still need better grammar, and more cohesive points. Because a lot of your last post made absolutely NO SENSE.

 

i actually forgot to point one very very very big point in odin sphere and okami! the ps2 is huge, it is double plus that of the wii. these two games did very poorly on the ps2 and the third parties kept pushing more games. the wii is half the ps2 and muramasa and okami wii sold better then the ps2. yet third party developers have left the wii. it's very interesting now.

...a game is a success when it's fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends. It's easy to list great games that sold poorly, or poor games that sold great.... http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/dear-readers-sales-of-games-do-not-indicate-quality.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging
by this definition, there is no shovelware on the wii because the games on the wii is "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends." so by this definition, the wii has a lot of good games because it has the biggest library that is "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends." now i understand why third parties hate the wii, because there is so much good games based on this idea. as capcom, i would definitely see why i would not want resident evil 5 or street fighter 4 on the wii because you have to compete with a lot of good games on the wii console. it makes sense. now i understand why electronic arts, capcom and sega don't want to make games for the wii.

 

Why are you comparing the Wii to the PS2? Is this your way of admitting that the Wii is a console behind it's time? Are you finally admitting that the Wii is a complete waste of money? Somehow I doubt it, it's more likely you just didn't think(ever).

[quote author=ultra]...a game is a success when it's fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends. It's easy to list great games that sold poorly, or poor games that sold great.... http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/dear-readers-sales-of-games-do-not-indicate-quality.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging
by this definition, there is no shovelware on the wii because the games on the wii is "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends." so by this definition, the wii has a lot of good games because it has the biggest library that is "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends." now i understand why third parties hate the wii, because there is so much good games based on this idea. as capcom, i would definitely see why i would not want resident evil 5 or street fighter 4 on the wii because you have to compete with a lot of good games on the wii console. it makes sense. now i understand why electronic arts, capcom and sega don't want to make games for the wii.
[/quote]

Wii games are fun to play, etc. (see what I did there?) only for about half an hour a week for the most part, any longer and I all the fun goes out of it. Maybe others feel different, as Natewlie said; it's all about opinion. The fact of the matter is, the Wii reached its peak about 3 years ago and is now declining. I feel it was the biggest rip off of any console ever (yes that includes the 360) and will never purchase one, hell if you gave me one I'd sell it.

 

I only think it's delining because everyone would have bought a wii already, and this year's set of games except a small portion, suck.

 

the wii has not reached it's peak because if there are games that is "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends" then it wouldn't matter. it wouldn't matter because based on the definition of what quality is, which is an opinion, then the wii isn't lacking in anything at all because it is still "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends."

if sales don't define quality, then this is defining quality. if this defines quality then everything is good, even the ngage. it wouldn't be a matter of technology or not because as long as the game is "fun to play, gives you satisfaction, and allows you to enjoy an evening or afternoon with yourself or some friends."

i don't know why gaynorvador crossed out the definition of quality. why did he crossed out the definition of quality?! maybe he can anwer but i doubt it.

 

I crossed the second two out because you repeated a long description, word for word, over and over again.

 

You do realize that has turned into an "ultra" ridiculing thread and not so much about Nintendo anymore...right?

 

I pointed that out. Most of his points are repeated and were already answered previously in the topic, that leaves room to ridicule.

The only thing that is indicative of quality is the player. The player is the only thing to detect how good or fun the game is to them. This factors in how much he likes story/gameplay/graphics over another or if that player likes all of them in a cohesive package. You're description of quality I think is not precise. I know that some games I don't think are fun to play, but I play them and I like it. I know many games that aren't satisfying to me, and I know a couple games that are fun in short bursts.

Quality is subjective, that's why there's different review scores, that's why numbered scores SUCK and that's why people should try out games they think is interesting and not because a review site gave it a 10/10.

Hell a game could be absolute TRASH and still be entertaining to the player, I think watching Starship Troopers and Uwe Boll movies are so god damn entertaining, but that's because they're SO DAMN BAD.

Also, my god, you're an idiot.

 

My understanding of quality is that the only reason why a certain game should get a bad review is because simply the reviewer did not like it. Not because the game is horribly designed, or lame plot devices, or whatever. It should only be because the person didn't like the style, or it's not their type of game.

I personally don't like puzzle games, but as long as it is well designed (yeah I know, real vague there), then it is a quality game.
It should be to the point where you can ask anyone and they can say that the game that they are seeing at that moment is a quality game, without a doubt, regardless of whether they actually like the game.

I do have to give game review sites (IGN mostly) some credit though. The ones they rate 4.0s and 5.0s and most shit around there is pretty spot on. They're pretty accurate until we get into the 8s and 9s and what they think are 10s.

Not every game has to have top-end graphics. Some games are designed to have a retro feel to it. That's acceptable. However, a game that struggles to display graphics of even mediocre quality is not acceptable. For example, even some of the best DS games absolutely fail at 3D graphics. Even FF3 looked HORRIBLE. Reminded me of Animal Crossing sprites with weapons. They were better off staying 2D because it doesn't look so pixelated, rugged and crappy.

Going back to my "fill the entire medium idea," every DS game should be around 256 MB. If you're not spending most of your space on graphics, then it better be on gameplay, and I'd expect every low-end graphic game to be in the 200-300 hour play time range. If the game isn't meant to be that long, then fill it with some decent music, not music that sounds like it's bleeding out its ass. Up the graphics, sound, etc. until you reached a balance between the three aspects. If at the end of that balance, you've only managed to hit 128, then keep going, keep increasing until you've hit as close to the max as you can get it.

I'm still wondering how the HELL did RE4 do decent on the Wii. Not only is it a re-release, but the Wii controls absolutely SUCK. They made the controls harder than it had to be. You had to hold buttons to shoot? Wait, what? Why can't I point and shoot with B like a NORMAL FPS/TPS would. The only explanation I can get out of this one is that it was the only adult-oriented title on the Wii at the time, and when you have no competition, well of course it's gonna do better than its nonexistent competitors.

I can see why MadWorld didn't do well. Their biggest mistake was the black and white style. I don't care if that was intentional or not, big mistake. People already get screwed on the graphics on the Wii, and this double screws them. I mean, come on, you're playing a last-gen console with motion controls and you're literally playing last-gen games with motion controls. It's the main reason why this game is still the only game I haven't played out of my entire 30+ game collection and it's the black and white style that puts me off every time I think about playing it. I know they say don't judge a book by its cover, but we all do it whether we'd like to admit it or not.

I also think that any game that fails to provide more than one means of control is shooting themselves in the foot. For FPS, however, only the motion control is really viable since the GC controllers suck at aiming and don't have enough shoulder buttons. But for any other game, there should be an option to use the GC controllers, classic, Wiimote, and Wiimote+Nunchuk. They shouldn't FORCE you to use only one means of control, unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Even Twilight Princess could have used the GC controller since it has its very own GC edition. If SSBB were only Wiimote compatible, I bet we'd get a TON of pissed off fans and lots of returned copies of the game. Who ACTUALLY plays using the Wiimote on Brawl? Might as well turn all items on, and put it to free for all, timed. Yeah. WTF. This is where the hardcore players use the GC controller and the casuals or in this case, the noobs use the Wiimote. In Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, the Wiimote is designed for beginner players, allowing them to use special moves using B, where the GC controller allows better combos, but at the cost of not having that luxury of accessing special moves so easily.

It's the casual gamer that has forever ruined games like WoW, where the idiots overaggro, taunt when they're not supposed to, aggro trash, run around/out of range so we can't target the mobs near them to peel aggro, and trail behind on the dps charts. Meanwhile, the hardcore players are just sitting there and wondering why the hell did they bother joining a PUG in the first place...

I've gone on too many tangents so I'll be done for the night. It went from my definition of quality games to bashing casual gamers. And yeah, most of this shit is their fault. I liked it better when only the truly nerdy played videogames. (sarcasm)

 

To insanecrazies post which I cbf'd quoting...

Re4 wii-I have the original gamecube version, not bad, now I lack re4 wii but i have dead rising which uses the same control system as re4 wii...


It works fine to me, if anything I react better with my own hand controls, if I miss, it's because my hand isn't steady.


Madworld-It's meant to be the feel about the game with the colour scheme, I can't picture half the stuff in colour, but if it was...it'd be in dark tones, but cell shaded...
Sales wise I'd say your opinion is shared by many who don't see my point, art style

That would look crap, cell shaded games are usually quite bright, which doesn't suit mad world at all.


As for gc controllers, They do the job fine, if anything I handle a gc fps better than a ps2 one, don't know why, maybe because of the stick position, maybe because I adapted better to the gc remote despite playing a ps1 for a few years prior before getting a gc, I don't know...


And casuals are only good at a quick easy sale, that's why "shovel ware" is still being made

 

(I'm not responding to the rest of your post, I've read it all and I agree with you on many points).

I know some games get bad reviews because reviewers don't really like the game, Bionic Commando I think got rated unfairly. It stuck to it's old school roots by it's linearity and it's tough control scheme (which, when used to, worked beautifully). It got docked for that, why? I know when Halo came out, it was hard to control at first, but eventually it became the only way to control on console shooters.

If a reviewer is rating a game that isn't for him, then it should be moved to another reviewer who is used to or is better at that type of game. Why should a puzzle game be given to review by someone who hates puzzle games? I've reviewed a vehicle/platform hybrid and FPS game because I like those types of games, I shouldn't be reviewing FFVII when I really don't like it for it being a turn based RPG.

I really like metacritic for gathering reviews of games and averaging the scores, it gives a basis or some sort of idea the kind of game you're going to get. Although I like Kotaku's reviews the best as they don't have a score, and you base if you're going to get it or not by the review itself, not the score.

Early adopters? Nearly everyone and their mother went crazy for a Wii when it came out, RE4 was one of those must own games and maybe the hardcore crowd told the casual crowd that it was a must own. I don't know.

Also the control scheme is the same way as it's gamecube counterpart.

Eh, I thought it was good, it was fun and offer the cheese factor, which I love in some games.

Next post will be ultra saying how you shouldn't blame the consumer. Point him to the ZOMG Wii Vs Xbox VS PS3 topic.

 

Agreed. I believe that if the reviewer is an RPG fan, then he/she should be the one rating RPGs. Why rate a game when you don't even enjoy the genre? But according to my "perfect world" there really shouldn't be any reason for a bad score if the quality is there. (That's what I was trying to get at, my bad) I see the unfairness in downrating simply because you didn't like it. It should be based solely on "quality" and if every game aims to be a quality game, then we'd have all 8s and above and would have to resort to rating to the nearest thousandth like 8.000 or 8.351. If all of them were 8s or 8.0s, I'd be ecstatic, but at the same time, it would be difficult to rank the games in order from best to worst of all of the scores were 8.0s, or 8.5s. It's like trying to decide whose name to put up on the board first when you have 5 people tied at 3 under par, all ending on the same hole.

Sadly, I know this. My question is, why must they make the controls harder than they have to be? The Conduit was the first real FPS on the Wii and they did fine as far as controls went. No clumsy movement, no aiming issues. Nothing. I have never gotten frustrated just trying to aim and shoot and strafe until RE4.

Going back to hYpNoS's post, yes, I get it. It's the artistic style, but not everyone appreciates that. Art is such a vague subject. What one considers art, another considers garbage. Walk into a museum and take a look around. Some works are so not exciting or special and you'll ask yourself, how did THIS get in here...The artistic style is what made or broke this game as far as sales. It was basically a coin toss. Either people are going to love it, or hate it. And coin flips are not good gambles to make in business decisions. Going back to our other posts. A good game doesn't always indicate good sales, and vice versa. It may be a good game, it just didn't sell well.

The companies are supposed to follow the consumers, not the other way around. It is actually both their faults. The companies abandoned mature games on the Wii and the hardcore consumers lost faith, went to the other 2 consoles, and now that the hardcore base has moved, the companies see that mature games are not profitable on the Wii. So where do they go? To the other two companies.

 

...you can't move and shoot at all in any of the re games...even re5 which allows you to strafe...but not while the gun is aiming :

 

That's my point...
Are they mentally retarded? Oh, I can't shoot while moving so while a horde of zombies come my way, I have to stop completely, AND THEN shoot. They can't multitask? What are they? Artillery units from Advance Wars? Mario can't run AND jump at the same time?

Just because they had this big huge hindrance in the first game doesn't mean that they should keep it just out of pure tradition.

I guess I'll go play Left 4 Dead if I want to shoot up zombies.

 

I loled at the Advance Wars thing.

I thought it was silly, it makes sense that you can't run and shoot at the same time, due to accuracy. I can imagine walking though (like Dead Space).

 

The reason a lot of games get undeserved scores is that many of the large games review sites are crooked. I think it was Batman: Arkham Asylum which was given a 10/10 because it was given out early to IGN. Also I can't believe that so many people believed that Halo 3 deserved a 10/10. I saw one site which gave a good review 7/10 and all the fanboys were spewing insults at the reviewer. I've played a good bit of Halo 3 by now and I think I'd rate it somewhere between 6/10 and 8/10 (I haven't actually sat down and thought it out).

 

if hardcore games don't sell on the wii, you blame the casuals. and that's okay because wii gamers aren't gamers. right!
but if a hardcore game doesn't sell on the 360/ps3, who do you blame?! everyones a gamer, right!

 

Hardcore games in general DO NOT EQUAL one specific hardcore game.

 

Because the 360 and PS3 fanbase is all hardcore and the Wii is only casual.

Sarcasm if you didn't notice.