^ agree with you two.

edit: typical it puts a new page when i put my arrow in

quote:

Originally posted by truffles222:
I thought that everyone who owned a wii also owned a PS3 or 360... Despite what anyone says, the Wii is not considered a 'serious' gaming console. I own a wii and PS3. All the 'proper' gaming takes place on the PS3. If I want a laugh with friends the wii comes out. They both serve different purposes. I had assumed this was everyone's view. Well between me and my friends it is.

I imagine that's usually the way it is. I have a 360 alongside my Wii, mainly because I wanted GTA IV, Fable2 and Assassin's Creed. I consider the Wii a serious console, but the problem is that some developers don't. Everyone seems to think because you waggle the controller, it suddenly means you can't have decently designed games for it. There are quality titles on the Wii, many of them made for the "serious" gamer, it just seems like Ubisoft doesn't get it.

I'm just irritated that the Wii doesn't get more. I'm not delusional; I know the Wii isn't capable of half the things the PS360 are. But surely it is capable of more than just "Dogz" and other related "Z" games with graphics that are barely good enough to be called last gen.

I do apologize for highjacking the thread with Wii ranting; I was mainly just irritated that they removed any other place to discuss such things in the forum clean-up and now my original account gets system errors when I try to log on.

Irritated....

quote:

Originally posted by truffles222:
I thought that everyone who owned a wii also owned a PS3 or 360... Despite what anyone says, the Wii is not considered a 'serious' gaming console. I own a wii and PS3. All the 'proper' gaming takes place on the PS3. If I want a laugh with friends the wii comes out. They both serve different purposes. I had assumed this was everyone's view. Well between me and my friends it is.

It's past 3 AM here in Australia, so I'm not going to bother with replies to others...

But I consider the Wii a serious gaming console - to the point that I'm nearing the point of having 30 games for it, 20 of which I would consider core titles (the other 10 being casual titles, because I'm not a prig who thinks that core gamers should only buy core titles). I don't own a 360, nor a PS3, mostly because the money that I would spend to buy either one can alternatively get me more than 5 Wii games, and there are already games that I've missed for the Wii, simply because of how many...

Games like Battalion Wars II, Fire Emblem, Elebits, possibly Okami (comes out tomorrow in Australia, and I don't know if I'll have enough time to justify getting it), Trauma Centre, Lego Star Wars... as I keep saying, you get the idea. If the Wii wasn't a serious gaming console, I'd be buying a 360 - but the Wii provides more than enough for any serious gamer who isn't overly impressed by graphics.

As I said, I would buy a 360, or even a PS2, if the Wii wasn't enough for me, a serious gamer. With the release of Super Smash Bros Brawl, every significant genre will be represented in my collection (well, except RTS, but I already mentioned the BWii situation), which is another thing I wouldn't be able to get on the 360 (not saying it doesn't have them, but not quality titles like you find on the Wii).

Of course, if we were to restrict our attention to Ubisoft's Wii lineup, then yes, it wouldn't look like much of a "serious gamer" console - mostly because Ubisoft have been incredibly dense in making Wii games - cutting costs, rushing titles, failing to advertise them properly, and not applying any sort of quality control on them. The few titles they've spent decent money (both dev and advertising) have sold massively - Red Steel sold to over 30% of Wii owners in the first 3 months. You can't seriously tell me that all those people weren't serious gamers.

quote:

Originally posted by Aielyn:
Red Steel sold to over 30% of Wii owners in the first 3 months. You can't seriously tell me that all those people weren't serious gamers.

And in general to your whole post...
If you were "serious" gamers or, i'd say hardcore enough gamers, you'd want to broaden your horizons. Just a wii? I game all systems since atari 2600. And yes, i still game on all those consoles. Not near the extent i game my PS3, 360, or PC; but i game them up still. Restricting yourself like that isn't hardcore in my book.

quote:

But I consider the Wii a serious gaming console - to the point that I'm nearing the point of having 30 games for it, 20 of which I would consider core titles (the other 10 being casual titles, because I'm not a prig who thinks that core gamers should only buy core titles).

That's great but doesn't alter that an amazing number of Wii owners never buy anything more than one or two of Nintendo's own games. As I noted, the bestselling third party game on the system was beaten in less than a month by Devil May Cry 4 and beaten three times over in a single week by Grand Theft Auto 4. And therefore, that the supposedly huge size of the Wii market is an illusion.

quote:

If the Wii wasn't a serious gaming console, I'd be buying a 360 - but the Wii provides more than enough for any serious gamer who isn't overly impressed by graphics.

Trouble is that unless you're into gimmicky input devices, the PS2 does too, is about as powerful in hardware terms and all the games are cheaper.

quote:

Originally posted by GBB_Doramascher:
That's great but doesn't alter that an amazing number of Wii owners never buy anything more than one or two of Nintendo's own games. As I noted, the bestselling third party game on the system was beaten in less than a month by Devil May Cry 4 and beaten three times over in a single week by Grand Theft Auto 4. And therefore, that the supposedly huge size of the Wii market is an illusion.

Remind me, which third-party Wii game is of the same quality as GTA IV or DMC 4? And which third-party Wii game has been given the hype and advertising blitz that GTA IV received?

Oh, that's right - third parties have been putting out mostly CRAP on the system, and refuse to actually hype the decent games. The few quality third-party titles have sold well, when they've had a bit of advertising behind them. But what say we look a bit deeper? I refer back to Red Steel - in spite of it not being a great game, it got a decent amount of pre-launch hype, so when launch came, it sold to around 30% of Wii owners.

Imagine if a game came out today that did the same thing - we're talking around 9-10 million sales. Problem is, there just hasn't been any game released for the Wii by third parties that has been good enough to pull this off, and very few have actually had advertising put behind them.

I honestly think that, had Ubisoft, Rising Star Games, and Marvelous/Spike actually hyped No More Heroes decently and advertised it properly, the game would have been more than a million-seller, easily. It's got the quality, but never got the hype.

Meanwhile, where did you get "best-selling third-party Wii game was beaten within a month by DMC4"? DMC4, across TWO systems, has sold 2.25 million copies. The top-selling third-party Wii title is Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (made by SEGA, not Nintendo), at 4.56 million, followed by Guitar Hero III at 2.79 million.

Oh, and Mario & Sonic is proof that a well-advertised, well-hyped game will sell well on the Wii. It's not an exceptional game - it's fun, but not exceptional... but the game is still being advertised, more than six months after release.

Another example of this is Assassin's Creed, which is Ubisoft's best-selling title of this generation, even though it's not nearly as good as a number of their other titles. Why? Because of hype - Ubisoft hyped Assassin's Creed, they didn't hype the other titles.

(EDIT: Also, "Wii owners only buy one or two games" is an idiotic claim that is only made by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. The rate at which Wii owners buy games is actually higher than the rate at which Xbox 360 owners buy games. That is to say, I've run the numbers, and while Xbox 360 owners buy a game roughly once every 2 months, it's more like 1.5 months for Wii owners - I ran the numbers about 3 months ago, though, so I don't recall the exact values. But the fact is, Wii owners aren't failing to buy games just as frequently, or even more frequently, than those of the other consoles.)

quote:

Trouble is that unless you're into gimmicky input devices, the PS2 does too, is about as powerful in hardware terms and all the games are cheaper.

OK, now I'm certain you're either an idiot or trying to flamebait me. The PS2 was the WEAKEST console of the last gen, by a significant amount. The Wii is more powerful than the Xbox, by a significant amount.

And gimmicky input devices is the fault of third-party developers, not the system. Nintendo make games with only sensible uses of motion-controls - in Mario Galaxy, it was used for a total of ONE action, and that was because it was a natural motion to make. On the other hand, it was used more extensively in Metroid Prime 3 to enhance the feel of actually interacting with the game - you throw forwards to throw a grapple beam, pull back to pull the item you've grappled, pull, twist, and push to activate doors and switches, but you still jump with a button, etc. No gimmicks, just uses that enhance the feel of actually being in the game.

There have been other developers who have used the Wiimote appropriately. No More Heroes uses it in a very simple and understated way that feels natural. NiGHTS actually makes the whole game work naturally with the Wiimote (that is, the game just isn't as natural without Wiimote motion controls), and Dewy's Adventure demonstrates the capacity for a game to work with the motion controls which wouldn't work at all, otherwise.

This is distinct from Ubisoft, who make nothing but gimmicky uses, with the exception of Red Steel. If Red Steel 2 is actually made (Ubisoft's track record recently makes me think they've just canned the project), and advertised/hyped, it will sell tremendously well, assuming it still avoids gimmicky uses of the Wiimote. Beyond Red Steel, if Ubisoft would learn not to just make gimmicky motion controls, they would do better on the Wii than they have so far - it's one of the defining problems of Ubisoft's failure on the Wii. Other than Red Steel, Ubisoft's only other successful Wii franchise is the one designed around gimmicky controls - Raving Rabbids. That series is gimmicky for a reason, and it works, much as how WarioWare works.

quote:

OK, now I'm certain you're either an idiot or trying to flamebait me. The PS2 was the WEAKEST console of the last gen, by a significant amount. The Wii is more powerful than the Xbox, by a significant amount.

That's really pushing the limit. A simple google search will show mixed results. In all honesty, it's very very close. It's definitely not surpassing the original xbox by a "significant amount", if at all. Alot of the improvements you might see in the wii may just be software related (ie programmers are getting more efficient), so the xbox might look that much better if people still dev-ed for it (which would be pointless i know). I could be wrong (never happens btw lawl), but im almost 100% positive the wii should not be called next gen.

quote:

Oh, that's right - third parties have been putting out mostly CRAP on the system, and refuse to actually hype the decent games.

This is because, as has been noted, the Wii is a weak system, which means an all-or-nothing attitude towards development since rather than being able to sell software on three platforms [PS3, 360 and PC] you're stuck with one and the slight possibility of a PS2 port. This is added on top of Nintendo's phenomenal ability to alienate third party developers [at a quick count, Midway, Rare, 3D Realms, Id Software, Sony, Square and Konami have all had disagreements of various severity with Nintendo in the past, in addition to all the third parties who made hideous losses on unsold cartridges at the end of the NES era] and a gimmicky controller that's hard to think of uses for.

There's also the problem you keep ignoring that the Wii demographic isn't the traditional one that games companies are well-versed in advertising to: it's all over the place, and targeting a percentage of the percentage of Wii owners who actually buy software isn't something that'd seem like a good idea. Particularly when zero-effort PS2 ports from shovelware companies turn a tidy profit on the Wii.

quote:

The few quality third-party titles have sold well, when they've had a bit of advertising behind them. But what say we look a bit deeper? I refer back to Red Steel - in spite of it not being a great game, it got a decent amount of pre-launch hype, so when launch came, it sold to around 30% of Wii owners.

It came out the same day the Wii did. Wow, people bought a launch title at a system's launch, stop the goddamn presses.

quote:

Imagine if a game came out today that did the same thing - we're talking around 9-10 million sales.

We're also talking about an utterly implausible leap in logic to get to them.

quote:

Meanwhile, where did you get "best-selling third-party Wii game was beaten within a month by DMC4"? DMC4, across TWO systems, has sold 2.25 million copies.

Haruhiro Tsujimoto seems to think Capcom shipped 2 million copies of DMC4 in the first month of release. I'm inclined to believe the President of Capcom about things like that. Also, the marvels of actually having current-generation hardware allow multiformat releases, which mean you can count two consoles' worth of sales instead of one. Funny how that provides an incentive for developers to ignore the Wii, isn't it?

quote:

The top-selling third-party Wii title is Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (made by SEGA, not Nintendo), at 4.56 million

You'd be right except the game was developed in-house by Nintendo in partnership with Sega, and Nintendo also distributed the game in Japan. Unless you use an extremely wonky definition of third party that includes first-party sales, it doesn't count.

quote:

Another example of this is Assassin's Creed, which is Ubisoft's best-selling title of this generation, even though it's not nearly as good as a number of their other titles. Why? Because of hype - Ubisoft hyped Assassin's Creed, they didn't hype the other titles.

Yeah, nothing to do with it being a stylish game with a strong niche appeal. Nope, gotta be that hype, by gum.

quote:

Also, "Wii owners only buy one or two games" is an idiotic claim that is only made by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Nice generalisation. I said a lot of Wii owners only buy one or two games. The figures speak for themselves on that basis: there's plenty of gamers with collections of dozens, offsetting the millions of Wiis that were bought as games in their own right.

quote:

The rate at which Wii owners buy games is actually higher than the rate at which Xbox 360 owners buy games.

And assuredly this is nothing to do with 360 games costing more or anything like that. I'd love to see these mythical statistics you purport to have, though.

quote:

But the fact is, Wii owners aren't failing to buy games just as frequently, or even more frequently, than those of the other consoles.

Then please explain, without absent figures or useless side-arguments, why once you get out of the bundle games the Wii is effectively selling jack in terms of software compared to consoles with less than half its install base. You're counting Virtual Console sales, aren't you?

quote:

OK, now I'm certain you're either an idiot or trying to flamebait me. The PS2 was the WEAKEST console of the last gen, by a significant amount. The Wii is more powerful than the Xbox, by a significant amount.

It's nice that you're certain everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, as has been borne out in this topic. It's hilarious that you can't figure out why nobody sympathises with your position when your attitude is essentially that of a Mac owner in a Vista support forum.

The relative power of the two consoles is similar by comparison to actual next-gen hardware [ie modern gaming PCs, the PS3 and the 360]. Since the only thing in the current generation you can multi-platform release Wii games to is the PS2, it's very much limited to the abilities of that console for a lot of its software. And given all your arguments stem from sheer install base size, you can't beat the best-selling console in the history of the world. Logically, therefore, nobody should develop anything for the Wii and everyone should go back to making PS2 games.

quote:

And gimmicky input devices is the fault of third-party developers, not the system.

The system is built around a gimmicky input device.

Lawl at this thread turning into a wii-bash. Not that it's really a bashing, it seems that everyone notes it's fun-factor. But the mac user in a vista forum is a pretty accurate analogy. Join a next gen console thread with your last-gen console complaints and you really have to expect it. I will give the wii one slight advantage over the original xbox. Even though the controller is gimicky, it will never be the hideous demon that was the originally launched xbox contro (not the "s", but the flying saucers). Again i gotta say, wii-realization tears are T_T delicious.

quote:

Even though the controller is gimicky, it will never be the hideous demon that was the originally launched xbox contro (not the "s", but the flying saucers).

Well, that's just what happens when daddy looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Sega...nalog_controller.jpg

quote:

Originally posted by GBB_Doramascher:
Well, that's just what happens when daddy looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Sega...nalog_controller.jpg

lol nice, i didn't expect anybody to bust that beast out. Props to you for not being a nublet.

I also love the definition of 'hardcore gamer' that includes the Wii. Last I checked, 'hardcore gamer' was something around the mark of selling your car to get hold of a copy of Radiant Silvergun, not 'I played the easiest Metroid Prime game yet and didn't fail horribly.'

quote:

Originally posted by GBB_Doramascher:
I also love the definition of 'hardcore gamer' that includes the Wii. Last I checked, 'hardcore gamer' was something around the mark of selling your car to get hold of a copy of Radiant Silvergun, not 'I played the easiest Metroid Prime game yet and didn't fail horribly.'

Aye. Game all you can game FTW. And selling your car for RS is lawl, but is totally in-line with what a hardcore gamer would/should do. Yeah... should do XD.

quote:

Originally posted by GBB_Doramascher:
You'd be right except the game was developed in-house by Nintendo in partnership with Sega, and Nintendo also distributed the game in Japan. Unless you use an extremely wonky definition of third party that includes first-party sales, it doesn't count.

OK, I was going to reply to your entire post, until I read this part. Upon reading this, I realised that you don't know even the remotest idea what you're talking about.

Mario & Sonic was developed by SEGA. The ONLY person from Nintendo that was involved in the development was Miyamoto, and that's because it involved Mario. Indeed, to be completely accurate, the development studios were Sega Japan and Sega Sports. Proof? Well, let's start with Wikipedia, which is only trustworthy when sources are provided... which is why it's so good that sources are, indeed, provided. But let's be simpler here - if we are to consider Mario & Sonic to be a first-party title, then we would also have to consider Red Steel to be a first-party title, because that title also got special help from Nintendo during development.

But your statement has made it clear to me that arguing in this forum about this topic is equivalent to trying to dash through a brick wall and destroy the wall in the process - it's just not worth attempting. I enjoy debating these issues with people who disagree with me - I dislike doing so with idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

And so, I bid you adieu. I tried being polite, apologising for the intrusion, but I'm not sure that this particular forum is any better than what you might find at GameFaqs - I think my efforts have been wasted. They say ignorance is bliss - may your bliss remain undisrupted.


EDIT: Upon skimming the remainder of your post, I see you challenged me to provide the numbers from which I drew my "months between games" figures from, and so, just to demonstrate that I'm not running away, I decided to go and find the numbers again, so I could actually give you the proper numbers.

The Wii, at the time I ran the numbers, was 75 weeks into its life, and had sold a little under 25 million units. I collected the numbers from VGChartz, and worked out that the average number of weeks that people have owned the Wii for is 35.37 weeks, or about 8.16 months. Similarly, the Xbox 360 at that same time was in its 127th week, and had sold about 18.5 million units. Again, collecting the numbers, I worked out that the average ownership time was 57.43 weeks, or about 13.25 month.

In case you're wondering, I did this analysis on challenge from another member of the forums I frequent, who is a devoted MS fan, and made claims similar to yours.

Anyway, I then got the most recent numbers for "attach ratio", the number of games per console owned (360 had 7.5 games per console, Wii had 5.3 games per console including Wii Play, or 4.5 games per console excluding Wii Play - Wii Sports was not included either way). I took the weeks-owned number, and divided it by the attach ratio, which gave me "number of weeks between game purchases". The result? Xbox 360 has people buying a game once every 1.77 months, or every 7.66 weeks. Wii has people buying a game once every 1.7 months, or every 7.37 weeks. If you include Wii Play, Wii has people buying a game once every 1.54 months, or every 6.67 weeks.

Were I in the mood to do so, I could update the numbers to reflect activity over the last month (as it turns out, I did this analysis a month ago)... but I'm leaving, as I said, so auf weidersein, konban wa, or whichever good night/good bye phrase you wish to use. I'll leave you all to your bliss, now.

quote:

Proof? Well, let's start with Wikipedia, which is only trustworthy when sources are provided...

Which they are. And sadly, neither the article nor the source supports you:

quote:

Wikipedia:

The corporation then requested and received approval from Nintendo to include Mario in the game Sega was going to use to help introduce young people into the Olympics. As a result of this and to ensure quality, Nintendo partnered with the developer in-house.

Now, let's look at source 22:

quote:

Nintendo Investor Relations Information:

Talking in general about our collaboration with our third party developers, we have been working with Sega to develop an Olympic sports game for Wii called, “Mario & Sonic at the Beijing Olympics,” that will be launched in November. As characters from our Super Mario titles will show up in the game, we are joining forces with Sega in development. By doing so, we are also collaborating with other companies to maintain the level of quality. We will continue to work with software makers in these and other ways.

That sounds like rather more than just Shigeru Miyamoto, doesn't it? Moreover, you failed to in any way address that Nintendo published the game in Japan, and therefore it's not a third-party title by definition. Good work on your research there, nitwit.

quote:

Originally posted by GBB_Doramascher:
That sounds like rather more than just Shigeru Miyamoto, doesn't it? Moreover, you failed to in any way address that Nintendo published the game in Japan, and therefore it's not a third-party title by definition. Good work on your research there, nitwit.

Glad I caught this while editing my last post.

Nintendo published Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure in Australia - does that make Zack & Wiki games first-party? No, it certainly does not. Resident Evil 4 was also published by Nintendo in Australia, but it also isn't first-party. First-party games are games developed and/or financed by the console-maker. Mario & Sonic was made by SEGA, with SEGA funding, and Nintendo's input since it involved Nintendo characters. Games can be published by Nintendo without being first-party titles.

quote:

Nintendo published Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure in Australia - does that make Zack & Wiki games first-party? No, it certainly does not.

No, it would make them second-party. Which doesn't make them third party. And oh look, Mr gone forever is still here because he thinks he can make a point.

Moreover, even if we accept this ridiculous argument at face value [that a game co-developed and co-published by Nintendo still counts as developed entirely independantly of them] it's still an irrelevance. If we kowtow to this ludicrous hair-splitting, you've successfully demonstrated that there's all of one successful third-party title on an entire console. One title which, might I point out again, was outsold by GTA 4 in one week. Savour your immense and awe-inspiring non-victory.

Oh, and since you decided to edit your post instead of replying:

quote:

I collected the numbers from VGChartz

And then you failed because you used VGChartz as a source. Next time try a site that isn't known for making up figures out of thin air and then replacing them with accurate ones as and when they actually become available.

The Wii was cool when it was called "Revolution" it meant something exciting, but in my opnion, it is even worse than the Gamecube, Gamecube II is more like it! Its more casual, I don't know why people are soooo angry, when I saw that controller I knew the Wii would become a casual console, drawing more than the Gamecube's "kiddie" audience, even if I had and loved one. Third party titles have a high chance of not surviving on the Wii, but I really hope to balance the battle, that the Wii will change.