Patcher is at it again

[WhiteMaze]

I'm probably going to grab a Wii U by year's end, closer to when all the cool 1st party games come out (Wind Waker HD, Mario Kart, Super Mario 3D World, Smash Bros, etc). But I think buying a console at launch is a terrible idea, even more so with the Wii U, since it's going to be until the end of this year before any games that scream "must buy" to me come out.

But I don't think Nintendo "doesn't want it to happen" with third parties. After all, why would they have tried to garner 3rd party support with the Wii U (even though they failed) if they "didn't want it to happen"? There's no negative impact that good third party support could truly have on a console.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't have a WiiU either. Nor do I plan on getting one until at least Super Smash Bros is released.

Well I understand that. But then again, if they truly did want it to happen, why are they backing down? (example: crysis 3)

:/

EDIT: Sorry for double posting guys, my mistake. I wanted to edit the previous post but forgot.

 

[Lestworth]

Wii U sales have shown EA to not completely trust Nintendo with the Wii U.

Its kinda poor to use COD as an example, though i see your point. Companies find it hard to release new IP's because they risk the chance of it being a flop. Dishonored was a huge risk, but it payed off. In this economy sometimes its better to just play it safe, but safe can only get you so far.

 

[emigre]

I see your point. However, I don't necessarily agree with it.

Game drought? Well the way I see things, just because "Call of Duty: Black Ops", "Call of Duty: Black Ops 2", and "Call of Duty: Holy crap!" exist, doesn't mean there isn't a game drought.

What did the N64, Gamecube and Wii all have in common? All three went through significant periods without meaningful software released for it. And why's that? Because there was barely any third party support. The Wii despite being the highest selling console has had a scarce number of decent games since 2010 to 2012.

Greater range of games to play. Well I sort of agree on that one, and disagree at the same time. It depends. Personally, I see a lot of the same concepts, over and over again.

I have a Wii. Can I play any good WRPGs on it? Can I play any good Third Person Shooters on it? Can I play any Valve games on it? Can I play any games with a genuinely great story and mature themes which leaves a great emotional impact the player?

The issue here is not the doing well or not. It is the creativity of the games. I want NEW and never before seen games. Not the same "crap".


Of course, Nintendo does release the same crap over and over. But if I buy Nintendo, I already know I'm going to be "stomping a lot of boomas" if you know what I mean.

Talk about hypocrisy and double standards.

After all, why would they have tried to garner 3rd party support with the Wii U (even though they failed) if they "didn't want it to happen"? There's no negative impact that good third party support could truly have on a console.

Is there anything substantive Ninty did to attract third party support? I'm actually curious about this.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Is there anything substantive Ninty did to attract third party support? I'm actually curious about this.

Perhaps not. But publicly, they at least made a show if it, is what I meant.

 

[emigre]

Perhaps not. But publicly, they at least made a show if it, is what I meant.

Cuz when I hear people talking about garnering third party support, I think of shit like handing questionaires to devs and asking for their thoughts like Sony did with PS4. Or giving them the dev kits they want like Sony did with developers recently. Or providing lucrative licensing deals.

 

[WhiteMaze]

What did the N64, Gamecube and Wii all have in common? All three went through significant periods without meaningful software released for it. And why's that? Because there was barely any third party support. The Wii despite being the highest selling console has had a scarce number of decent games since 2010 to 2012.

True. But that applies to all of the competitors. And if you count that the competition HAS third party support, well it makes the situation that much darker.

I have a Wii. Can I play any good WRPGs on it? Can I play any good Third Person Shooters on it? Can I play any Valve games on it? Can I play any games with a genuinely great story and mature themes which leaves a great emotional impact the player?

Well I have a Wii too. I think this is the main point. While you are certainly right about lack of RPG's, I didn't buy a wii to play Third Person Shooters or First Person Shooters. See my point? I play those on my computer.

Talk about hypocrisy and double standards.

Wow wow. Before you accuse me of something, make sure you understand my point. While Nintendo itself, hasn't innovated much on the games themselves, they innovated in how you PLAY them. That was the case with the Wii, and was also the case with the DS.

And even "worse", if you go back to FAST6191's post, considering the Wii and NDS outsold all their competitors:

If a language does not have a wide array of books and information published in it then most consider it a failed language.

If a video format does not get widely used by a whole host of parties then it can be considered to have failed. Repeat for other types of multimedia.

Software development as an only route in is via the maker affair is actually fairly radical as far as such things go.

To that end I am not sure I can really back that view.

So does this mean that Sony and Microsoft are failed companies? I don't think so.

I just think things need to be done a little bit different. And that also includes Nintendo.


I'm no Nintendo fanboy here. I'm just after innovation. Now look at the competitors: neither the games are innovative, and neither is the way you play them.

 

[emigre]

True. But that applies to all of the competitors. And if you count that the competition HAS third party support, well it makes the situation that much darker.

The competition HAS third party support. The modern industry is a three horse race where the two horses have third party support.

Well I have a Wii too. I think this is the main point. While you are certainly right about lack of RPG's, I didn't buy a wii to play Third Person Shooters or First Person Shooters. See my point? I play those on my computer.

I have a PS3. I can play RPGs, TPS, platformers, puzzle games, strategy games, racing, fighting, stealth, action, open world, sandbox, artistic, indie games on it. See my point? I get a wide variety of games to play without having to invest in a second gaming setup.

Wow wow. Before you accuse me of something, make sure you understand my point. While Nintendo itself, hasn't innovated much on the games themselves, they innovated in how you PLAY them. That was the case with the Wii, and was also the case with the DS.


I'm no Nintendo fanboy here. I'm just after innovation. Now look at the competitors: neither the games are innovative, and neither is the way you play them.

Waggle isn't innovation. Mario Galaxy is a fantastic game, there was nothing new in how you played it, Kirby's Adventure was a lot of fun, it played like a standard 2D platform. Donkey Kong was good yet it played like a standard 2D game bar the forced waggle. The only game Nintendo developed which actually fulfilled the Wii's potential was Skyward Sword. Yet funnily Red Steel 2 already achieved what Skyward Sword did earlier as well as better. It was also a third party game.

 

[DiscostewSM]

*Facepalm*

I assume you're "facepalming" the bit about Pachter being paid by Microsoft, which is indeed true. Pachter works under Viacom, and some time back, Microsoft paid Viacom $500 million for advertising of their products. He not allowed to talk bad about Microsoft (you don't bite the hand that feeds you), so in order to make Microsoft look good without actually talking about them, you make the competition look worse.

Politics 101.

 

[Mantis41]

It is as near as fact. If you want to play Nintendo and other high profile games you will most likely need two gaming platforms thanks to Nintendo's inability to build a rig that meets most developers next gen expectations.

 

[TripleSMoon]

I assume you're "facepalming" the bit about Pachter being paid by Microsoft, which is indeed true. Pachter works under Viacom, and some time back, Microsoft paid Viacom $500 million for advertising of their products. He not allowed to talk bad about Microsoft (you don't bite the hand that feeds you), so in order to make Microsoft look good without actually talking about them, you make the competition look worse.

Politics 101.

I used to volunteer write for a Nintendo-centric gaming news site that Nintendo advertised on. But that didn't keep us from criticizing Nintendo when we thought they were doing something stupid. Paying someone's parent company for advertising doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're kept on a leash and required to censor yourself to make that company look good. To assume it's a foregone conclusion that Pachter isn't allowed to talk badly about Microsoft because his parent company got paid for advertising (a fairly common practice) is just flat out stupid, not to mention a bit dishonest.

 

[WhiteMaze]

The competition HAS third party support. The modern industry is a three horse race where the two horses have third party support.

What?

I didn't say the competition doesn't have third party support. I said the competition has also has periods with few decent games even WITH third party support.

I have a PS3. I can play RPGs, TPS, platformers, puzzle games, strategy games, racing, fighting, stealth, action, open world, sandbox, artistic, indie games on it. See my point? I get a wide variety of games to play without having to invest in a second gaming setup.

True. Yet, I didn't buy a PS3, nor do I plan to due to the single reason that while there are literally millions of games, the fact that only a few are good, also applies. I don't see quantity as quality.

And I wouldn't have bought a Wii either, were it not for Super Smash Bros Brawl. That was the sole title that made me buy it.

But then again, I guess everyone has different tastes.

Waggle isn't innovation. Mario Galaxy is a fantastic game, there was nothing new in how you played it, Kirby's Adventure was a lot of fun, it played like a standard 2D platform. Donkey Kong was good yet it played like a standard 2D game bar the forced waggle. The only game Nintendo developed which actually fulfilled the Wii's potential was Skyward Sword. Yet funnily Red Steel 2 already achieved what Skyward Sword did earlier as well as better. It was also a third party game.

If you don't think the Wii innovated in the way games were played, then I don't know what to say to you sir. I'm baffled that you think that. The fun I've had with the Wii, especially with friends, far outweighs any other gaming platform I've ever had.

But I see this is going nowhere. You clearly favor Sony, while I favor Nintendo. So let us enjoy our gaming platforms without bashing at each other.

 

[Lestworth]

The wii was innovative, i can't see how anyone can argue it wasnt. It was the first successful attempt at making motion controls viable. The biggest argument is that the Wii, and even the Wii U had little support from 3rd parties, and basically marketed the common market with its over 60% library of shovelware. I could look over the Wii library and MAYBE find 25 games worth playing. When i could look at the Ps3/Xbox360 library and find a minimum of 50-75 games worth playing.

 

[FAST6191]

It was the first successful attempt at making motion controls viable.

Yet no console maker, including Nintendo, is following up with a motion controls only or even a main focus of the controls as motion controls unless I count touchscreens (I can not see how I would/should/could). To that end I probably get to look back at the eyetoy or even say motion controls are probably not viable at the present level of tech.
If it ever happens (barring sub mm finger tracking, and probably some tactile feedback as well) it will probably be because android pulled it off and as most valid criticisms I ever see there are "gah (lack of) controls" I am not expecting an awful lot there either.
See also "gimmick".

The biggest argument is that the Wii, and even the Wii U had little support from 3rd parties, and basically marketed the common market with its over 60% library of shovelware. I could look over the Wii library and MAYBE find 25 games worth playing. When i could look at the Ps3/Xbox360 library and find a minimum of 50-75 games worth playing.

Amount of shovelware (though I have very serious issues with the term, to the point where I would argue there is very little I would classify as shovelware) and amount of good games are not the same thing. Your point probably stands (when it comes down to it I am nowhere near as intimately familiar with the Wii library as I am the 360, DS or GBA so I can not call it) but I did have to mention that.

So let us enjoy our gaming platforms without bashing at each other.

That is not usually a problem around here, the issues tend to come when one or another tries to sell someone else on the game/franchise/platform they enjoy and we get to analyse it in depth. At this point seriously wonky logic has a habit of appearing and without serious intervention it goes downhill from there. Not always but more often than we might like.

 

[Lestworth]

i could sit here for the next hr and show you a giant stupid list of wii shovelware games but im not gonna.

 

[WhiteMaze]

That is not usually a problem around here, the issues tend to come when one or another tries to sell someone else on the game/franchise/platform they enjoy and we get to analyse it in depth. At this point seriously wonky logic has a habit of appearing and without serious intervention it goes downhill from there. Not always but more often than we might like.

Yes I agree.

Everyone has an opinion. It is nothing more than exactly that.

 

[EzekielRage]

My main question is:

HOW MANY GAMES CAN YOU ACTUALLY PLAY?

I don't have time to spend all day playing gazillion games. I own a PS3 and have exactly 23 games for it. I have 3 Wii U games and this number will climb to 8 when the year is over. I have 26 Wii games and around 20-25 Gamecube games (not sure about theright number) and I have 11 3DS games (13 if you count downloadables) and a bunc of DS games i forgot the rigth number probably around 15-20.

Why am I saying this? Well simply because the question is how much can you play? Suppose any console has a ton of games, what good would that do to you? You can't possibly play all those games. Isn't it better to have ONE good game EACH MONTH than ten good games every week? You might think different, but that's what I think and if you talk tor egular people on the street, they agree. Who has the cash to buy all those games and the time to play them?

Sure you migth say that with more games you have more to chose from and that is correct. But in the end you WILL miss out on great games, ALWAYS, no matter what console you have because you can't afford it or you have no time or you decided to play anotehr great game first.

So in the end all this talk amounts to one thing only and this is sales - not YOU playing more games. I know I couldn't, I am sure your day has 24 hours just like mine and you are probably just as busy withr eal life as I am - that is if you ever moved out of mommys basement and GOT a real life of course...

 

[Arm73]

My main question is:

HOW MANY GAMES CAN YOU ACTUALLY PLAY?

I don't have time to spend all day playing gazillion games. I own a PS3 and have exactly 23 games for it. I have 3 Wii U games and this number will climb to 8 when the year is over. I have 26 Wii games and around 20-25 Gamecube games (not sure about theright number) and I have 11 3DS games (13 if you count downloadables) and a bunc of DS games i forgot the rigth number probably around 15-20.

Why am I saying this? Well simply because the question is how much can you play? Suppose any console has a ton of games, what good would that do to you? You can't possibly play all those games. Isn't it better to have ONE good game EACH MONTH than ten good games every week? You might think different, but that's what I think and if you talk tor egular people on the street, they agree. Who has the cash to buy all those games and the time to play them?

Sure you migth say that with more games you have more to chose from and that is correct. But in the end you WILL miss out on great games, ALWAYS, no matter what console you have because you can't afford it or you have no time or you decided to play anotehr great game first.

So in the end all this talk amounts to one thing only and this is sales - not YOU playing more games. I know I couldn't, I am sure your day has 24 hours just like mine and you are probably just as busy withr eal life as I am - that is if you ever moved out of mommys basement and GOT a real life of course...

I understand what you are trying to say here, but consider this:

If you need to buy a new TV, do you go to your small, local store ( if there is still any ), or to a big,fat Best-Buy mega-store with hundreds of models on display, even though you only need to buy one ?
Or if you want ice-cream, don't you like to go to those places with dozens of different flavors, instead of your basic chocolate, vanilla strawberry ?

The key word here is variety.
You won't have to buy every frigging game out there, but it's surely nice to have plenty of choices.
Also if you go to a video-games store, by simply looking at the shelf's space dedicated to each system, don't you think that the biggest, most crowded one sends a healthy signal to a potential buyer ?
That's all about it there is.

 

[Flame]

Maybe we should develop some Wii U games, except with blackjack and hookers.

 

[jacksprat1990]

Yet funnily Red Steel 2 already achieved what Skyward Sword did earlier as well as better. It was also a third party game.

I couldn't help but laugh at you, what a load of shit that is.

 

[KazoWAR]

The only reason to own any console is for an exclusive title.