gamrDebate Ep #1 - Has The Wii SUCCEEDED As A "Gamers" Console? -- Morenoingrato & SheepLord *VS* SaviorX & Dr_Jameo --

Welcome to the first Episode of gamrDebate, a debate competition between VGChartz users carried out in the most "authentic" way as possible.

The debates are done through private messaging with a strict set of rules that the contestants need to follow.

This weeks topic talks about the Wii.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

---- Intro -----

We have two teams participating.

Supporting The Statement that the Wii HAS indeed SUCCEEDED as a "gamers console" we have:

Morenoingrato & SheepLord

Attacking the statement that the Wii Has SUCCEEDED as a gamers console, so basically the guys who think it didn't are:

SaviorX & Dr_Jameo

---- End Of Intro -----

_____________________________________________START_______________________________________________________________________

The Defence

From Sheeplord

Firstly, I wish to thank both Conegamer and darthdevidem01 for hosting and setting this debate. It cannot be denied as important when the next generation is prowling on the horizon.

On the topic at hand, however - I wish to firstly, give a reference to the figures, as held by wikipedia, on console sales:
Worldwide sales figures

1. Wii – 86.01 million as of 31 March 2011
2. Xbox 360 – 55 million as of 4 June 2011
3. PlayStation 3 – 50 million as of 31 March 2011

Note, that for the PS3 and the 360, the Wii has sold 1.5 units to every one of these which sold. As a commercial product, the Wii has undeniably been successful this decade. Outstripping competition from both Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo announced a profit slump this year, by a drop of 66%, but this has still grossed 77.6bn yen ($945m; £570m), which when directly compared to Microsoft and Sony, may not seem as large but it must be refuted and weighted that both of those companies have products outside videogaming. Nintendo is primarily, a gaming company.  

For a company that in the last generation, was a company that only beat Sega's dreamcast on sales, this is impressive:

PlayStation 2 150 million (as of January 31, 2011)
Xbox 24 million (as of May 10, 2006)
GameCube 21.74 million (as of September 30, 2010)
Dreamcast 10.6 million (as of September 6, 2002

This shows not only did Nintendo successfully outstrip sales by other companies, but they bounced back from being outstripped. This may sound obvious fact but when brand recognition is considered, and that in the 6th generation, Nintendo was not a household name but rather the gameboy (their handheld) and that now it is, this allows it to be argued that the success of this generation can be ultimately down to the console itself. That the console has managed this, leaves it doubtless that it is a commericial success, if nothing else.

I shall now hand over to morenoingrato.

---------------------

From morenoingrato 

And even if their hardware figures are very impressive, more impressive are their very strong and consistent software numbers: Wii is having very strong software sales even after their weakest moment yet, and many of their successful and critically acclaimed titles are having the recognition and sales they deserve.

Games like Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, Donkey Kong, Zelda, still show strong support and sales until this day, and it shows how their fans care and have fun with Nintendo's system.

What is what matters the most in a console? It's not whether graphics and power are high or not, it's about the great games it has, and until last year's holiday, Nintendo has EXCELLED in that department. And even if they are having some inconsistencies lately, I have faith Nintendo will bring us top notch games to close the system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Offense

From SaviorX 

Is the Wii a successful ‘Gamer’s console’? Games are available on the console, and nearly every genre under the sun is catered to however I think in terms of success in reaching gamers, the Wii has failed.

First, look at the perception of the console. The first judgment came from gaming media itself, which quickly abandoned the console and was harshly against it shortly after the 2nd year of launch. Industry pundits and developers had negative comments almost daily aimed towards the Wii’s direction for years.

As a result, games that are popular RIGHT now (major franchises), were not made for the system. Granted, one of the Wii’s biggest titles, Wii Fit, was wildly popular, but it is a toss-up whether it is even a game or not. What’s important is the games, and this is where the Wii faltered greatly.

Forget about the massive amounts of shovelware; market leaders always have those, but the difference is the Wii lacked every single blockbuster that comes with a leading console. Bad enough, the system lacks an online presence, so that takes the longetivity out of the life of most games. Then, the multiplayer was hampered due to the sheer expense of every controller with maybe-optional accessories like Wii Motion Plus and Nunchucks. Few games were capable of even using control methods properly; for each strength you can name in these titles, you can list twice as many giant flaws in their execution. Marketing has twisted the system’s image to more of a fad than an innovation, and Nintendo’s success comes off as being due to sheer luck rather than researched implementation.

Nintendo’s games have sold millions, but few of their efforts have been able to outclass what they have produced even in the last generation. As a result, a wide majority Wii’s software did not expand the userbase nor improve previous formulas properly. There were only 3 franchises that exceeded what the last gen produced in quality, and they were Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Bros Brawl.

New SMB < Super Mario World.
Wii Music < Mario Paint.
Radiant Dawn did not improve upon Path of Radiance. Other M is already forgotten in the mindset of most gamers (thanks to Malstrom for some people). I was never a fan of Animal Crossing due to its artstyle appearing too lazily created, and it killed Wii momentum in 2008.

It is bad enough that gamers are fully adamant about moving on and putting the console behind them. The potential that was there to deliver truly unique experiences on the console was extremely limited. It is even worse that Nintendo themselves have left the console unsupported for the better half of a year and are releasing a console with the impression that there were games they simply did not deliver to the audience.

If the Wii was such a success with gamers, why is Nintendo so keen on abandoning the strategy they used with the Wii console with the Wii U[ltra]?

-----------------

From Dr_Jameo 

Besides, to counter Sheep's point with statistics, the question in hand was 'Has the Wii succeeded as a 'gamer's' console?'. I believe simply spouting statistics is irrelevant if we're assessing if it achieved its goal or not.

For me, that goal was to sell. It obviously has to have been, or else it would have been a complete waste of time. But what was the Wii's target audience? Families and a new 'family gamer'. Most games that followed were exactly that; ones that could be played with the family watching, or even better, joining in. Examples of such games include Wii Sports (and all of its spin-offs), Wii Party etc.. Indeed, many previous 'gamer's games' have now been made more family friendly. Again, examples include Mario Kart (back in the day of the SNES --> GBA copies, it was very self centred, you competed for track times, ghost laps and so forth), New Super Mario Bros., in fact - anything with Mario labelled on it! It sort of devolved into cash cow marketing - they know it will sell if it has Mario on it (ignoring Hotel Mario for a second), so the originality behind it goes. My favourite example being Mario Party. Come on, is it ten Mario Parties? Even CoD only has seven titles.

So what's my point about family gaming? Sure, if the majority of games aren't for 'gamers', it can still be a gaming console if it has gems right?

No. Not a single chance. It set out to give Wii Fit to mums, Mario whatever to the kids, and maybe Sports Resort to Dad or whatever. The fact that it does have a few 'gaming games' means that it's just that - a few extra in the overall categorisation of the family console, not the gamer's console.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Defence

From Sheeplord

A contention I take to the argument it "is not a games console" however, lies within the fact that gaming, is relatively undefined. Along with the good old "hardcore" label. Let's face it, in the current era of things - an application for what primarily calls itself a phone is considered a full game (Angry Birds), a timesink on Facebook is again, considered a game (Farmville).

I hate these being games as much as the next stoic "[Game I played when I was 7] is the best thing ever and nothing will beat it" schmuck out there. But the fact is, these still are games - something played to entertain that offers reward for action, is a game. In respect to this, even items such as Wii Fit, Wii Sports and other such...tolerable title are used by people to entertain. Even if they entertain a family as opposed to a single individual.

At what point do we start saying that even though a disc's software is directed to entertain in some way, it is no longer a game? Do we base it off arguably non-existant lines of hardcore-ness? Something played by an ideological concept of a gamer? "Maturity"? The number of people who play it? A contract of demands longer than the Indian Constitution? I would argue, harsh a reality to meet as it is, titles such as Wii Spots/Fitness/Resort are still games. As a platform designed primarily to play these, it is thus a games console. A successful one at selling.

Now, I will admit and conceed - the Wii has almost no online presense. Only a few games exist that make full use of online gaming, which has increasingly grown in size and scope as a gaming medium. That is irrefutable and pundicts have berated Nintendo time and time again this generation for not picking up the LAN party (so to speak). I also, conceed and admit, the controller was a dead end. How far can motion controls be taken?  

Yet, most online work has been a direct result of developers seizing consoles for it. The (in)famous Call of Duty series comes to mind on this, along with almost every other war game. The online playstyles, the servers, the gaming mechanics, etc. - are all the result of publishers. They are worked on and maintained by developers. The Wii had capability of online interaction, as demonstrated by the woefully short list of games which used this. In technical ability, it was successful. Marketing on this front, was not. But - as Dr_Jameo has put forth - it was not designed for such, it was designed for families and the "family gamer".

The same is rather applicable to the controller scheme. Motion controls may be a development dead-end yet commercially, especially with imitation by Sony and Microsoft, have succeeded. Along with this, it is posable that Nintendo's abandonment of the motion control is simply a way to avoid this competition by Sony and Microsoft - along with trying to appear "the innovator". To remain the console drawing a casual crowd with shouts of "look at these shinies". A touch screen perhaps being enough, perhaps no.

---------------------

From morenoingrato 

And about the expected third party response, it's right, Wii failed as a third party machine, but are you all just gonna focus on what it doesn't have? There is huge and vast library of amazing first party games,more than enough to satisfy a gamer. I could make a complete list covering a lot of genres with great critically acclaimed titles.

Wii has many games and has been pretty much flawless in it's history, even with some slowdowns, Wii has, in my opinion, the best first party any system has to offer. And games are what it's all about, no online, and the lack of third party support cannot erase the fact Wii has a strong first party line-up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Offense

From SaviorX 

Not everyone is the same; some people may not like Nintendo’s first party software. I personally, am not really a fan of the 3D Mario games.

If that were to be the case, some the 1st party was not enjoyable and the 3rd parties are knowingly subpar, what do you have left, Virtual Console? Software is why people buy consoles; the Wii’s lack of software was responsible for both of its price cuts. Such immediate decline due to software is unnatural, and for a market leader is unheard of. The Playstation 3 managed to outsell the Wii for the majority of the year, even when it was $100 or more expensive. I shudder to think what would have happened if the Just Dance series, and the dance genre in general, did not take off the way it did.

In terms of interface, the Wii excelled at parts, but it just needed too much to be fully functional. If you ran out of space due to Wiiware, you have to buy an SD card. For certain Virtual console games, you had to buy a Classic Controller. Demos were added later, along with Wii Motion Plus. Why did Nintendo have to play catch up with several features? It makes it appear as if consumers bought a basic Wii and had to build the rest of it from the ground up. For a console that made such an effort to be simple to use, customers have to go through many hoops for functionality.

You agree that the controller was short-lived. Early on, Wii controls were able to justify not buying the PS3/360 version of the same game or something in a similar format. Now, anything Wii can do, the others have done better for years.

You agree the online was near non-existent. The 3rd parties made few outstanding titles. Part of my issue is that despite being catered to a wide audience, the games specific to the “hardcore/experienced/avid gamer” were experimental at best, yet displayed as if they were concentrated and deep efforts. The fact that these were subpar just made gamers feel left out. The average gamer is like 32 supposedly, but in the Wii’s case, the entire demographic of males from 13-34 were underserved. There was no major multiplayer online game that the average gamer could’ve gotten behind. All my life, local multiplayer was a large part of my gaming experience, but the Wii lacked what even the Gamecube got correct.

Good Soul Calibur? No. There were Clunky wrestling games and even worse fighting games. Incomplete and insulting racing titles without a whisper of an American JRPG presence. I know what the Wii 1st party did for everyone else, but what did it do for me? I rented the first party games, but haven’t bought one since 2008.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Defence

From morenoingrato 

So then what's the point of buying a Wii? Isn't the point of buying consoles buy them for the stuff that defines them?

If you wanna play Halo or Gears, 360 is for you, if you wanna play something from Team ICO, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, buy PS3.

You should know the stuff that defines Nintendo is Mario, Zelda and all of their franchises, if all that isn't for you, you have the CHOICE to not go with Nintendo. But if you do, you are getting a very rich and strong experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Offense

From Dr_Jameo 

I beg to differ morenoingrato. If I wanted a 'rich and strong ['Mario, Zelda and all of their franchises] experience', I'd dig out my Gamecube and N64. The Wii does these franchises worse than its predecessor(s). Primary example - the Melee --> Brawl transition.

What's a gamer I recall reading? Yes, it's hard to define. It's probably just a label for people to justify their beliefs as to why their genre taste/console beats the others. But alas, it's not in the question, so we shouldn't try and stray too far from it (and even worse, it ends tomorrow/tonight :( ).

And in morenoingrato's own style - if you want to jog on the spot with the illusion of getting fitter, if you want to anomalously game with people across the world who might as well be bots but worse, if you want to fly around cheering and collecting stars (me gusta at Mario Galaxy), the buy a Wii. It's not fair to generalise, but it's reasonable to draw general conclusions.

Xbox - Mostly shooters. Some exclusives (plus those on Marketplace).
PS3 - Same as above, different exclusives.
Wii - Mostly family games, nearly all exclusives (before we mention Virtual Console).

Sure, there's deviation on occasion, but I believe those are the 'labels' we could easily assign to the consoles. So in answer to the question, based on what's been said in this whole debate, I think the Wii failed as a gamer's console. It was too busy soaking in the cash from the usual gonads.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Defence

From morenoingrato 

The actual point of the Wii was to play Wii games, why else would you buy a system if you don't like it's games?
Also, the fact about Gamecube and N64 being better than Wii is personal taste.
The online was a key factor that was missing, but did it really damaged THAT bad? Many critics and gamers still love and fun with the games library.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Offense

From SaviorX 

Many people bought the Wii solely based off the potential it had.
I was going to have it based on Smash Brothers no matter what, but people like my brothers were expecting follow-ups to titles made available early on like the Resident Evil 4 port. That was a game with solid content that still had graphics that were not to dated at the time

Then games started being released on Wii that were missing content if it was multiplatform, or Nintendo was just making upgraded versions of their DS games (Animal Crossing, New Super Mario Bros.).

People expected new games, yet we got several Gamecube sequels that just happened to have their controls be forced into the Wiimote somehow. SSBB would have sold regardless, but the lagged online damaged its community. Towards the end of the generation, Nintendo was still unproven in the online sector. It is hard to expect them to turn all these things around that people asked for next gen, when this gen, they localized games based off convenience rather than library strength. Also, they never made one game that was massively played online.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Defence

From Sheeplord

As has been given here by SaviorX - the Wii did not appeal to a hardcore/experienced/avid gamer but more to a family group. But I would argue that the casual far outnumbers the hardcore in the amount who fufill that concept. And there is a point in that - it satisfied more people. There was a purpose to which I opened with the Wii's commercial success, it statistically showed the Wii sold, people enjoyed and still enjoy it. Little as pundits may.

But a difference exists between say, the common man and a film critic. A critic will be a connoisseur, seeing the clichés, the lapses in CGI quality, the acting flaws. An average man may see these but the subtleties will often be unnoticed by people who aren't avid in the field. In the same respect, a person who plays videogames and treats it almost religiously - will notice flaws and demand more of games than the average person. In the same respect, the average person would not have reached a point of requiring an SD card.

This may seem odd as an argument to use. Let's face it, do we really consider it a success in gaming if it wasn't for gamers? Yes, because gaming is not exclusive to "gamers" (insofar as they are an exclusive group). It entertained families as opposed to gamers yes. But this does not stop it being a gaming console.

A problem I find with the concept that "it did not appeal to gamers therefore it was not successful as a gaming console" is that it is a circular logic. Self-feeding without input or output. It must be a gaming console because gamers play it, you are a gamer because you play a gaming console. It simply collapses because it relies upon itself and nothing solid in definition. I find that as it actually provided videogames, videogames people bought and the Wii sold on merit of people wanting to game with it, yes - it did succeed. Saddening as that is.

However, on SaviorX's recent point - that the Wii was mostly based on sequel-izations, I argue that most games this generation, most blockbusters (to refer to an earlier point) were simply sequels. Often with rehashed, yet similar controls. Very rarely have many big titles this generation struck without something original. In some respects, the Wii holds a high ground by merit of it forced controls to be different. Even then, many of it's games that were actually noteworthy in size were different (I point to Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess primely there). New mechanics did exist. In terms of innovating, it has worked.

___________________________________END___________________________________________________________________________________

We HOPE you enjoyed this debate!

Please vote in the poll to say who you think debated better! (DO NOT vote on what your opinion on the Wii's situation as a gamers console...PLEASE VOTE to tell us who you thought debated well!)

Also please give your comments on the issue regarding the Wii in the thread!

Thank you to morenoingrato, SheepLord, SavirX & Dr_Jameo for taking part!

Thank you to conegamer for supporting (he will be doing the next episode)

Thank you to my dog Jerry for morale support!

Very interesting debate I reckon here. I still think that the offence win it. They make the best points, as hard as it is for me to say that :/

Both teams did very well, but I think that the defence just about took it for me.

I think that was supposed to be the idea. That way, it helped to stop flaming/trolling by people saying 'it has no GAMEZ' and so no lists were made by either side. That didn't happen. I was quite impressed by that.

tagged..that's a lot to read and only read a bit so far..but it looks great :D will post again after I read the whole thing

I hope you don't mind this word-dump, but I thought that it would have been a shame for my notes to go to waste :P

Represents broken promises and lost dreams:
- Wii-mote was supposed to represent immersion through movement. It achieved this, so long as you believe that a frantic swing of your arm is an accurate representation of playing tennis.
- The Wii-mote didn’t work as everyone thought it would, only 2 years later would we get the real deal. Zelda TP; can’t actually move the sword. I never bought this game in the end, because of my experiences when first playing it.
- Instead of pressing buttons, we waggled the controller. It’s not the fully immersive experience that we were expecting. Waggle = new button. The Wii-mote is too simple for complicated games with duel analogue sticks.
- The best games on the Wii don’t make much use of the motion technology – this ISN’T a good thing! It says a lot about the console when the best games make almost no use of its unique selling point.
- You hear people cry out “It’s not about the graphics!”, but then you hear them desperately praising the technical parts of games such as Muramasa and Monster Hunter Tri. The truth is, we all wish that the Wii could compare to the competition in terms of power, but we just hide it.

Rejection of Nintendo’s core fan base
- Not very powerful. Nintendo did this to make more money (combined with lack of DVD player of any media functionality). Those people that are excited about the WiiU are looking forward to seeing Nintendo franchises in HD, but they could have done that for us back in 2006.
- Not a great reward for those that stuck with Nintendo through the GC era. All of the things that Nintendo had done with the Wii were with the expanded audience in mind.
- Online ruined by friend codes; almost impossible to join friend’s games. This has greatly affected Nintendo’s reputation with 3rd parties – you can’t blame them for the mistakes that Nintendo made. This generation is all about online multiplayer, but how can you expect core gamers to flood to the Wii if they can’t play CoD like they can on the 360?
- On the topic of online, the Wii Shop channel is seriously lacking. Demos were a good idea, but we didn’t see enough of them. The channel is hard to navigate to find the best content out of a lot of rubbish. It’s like the videogame crash of the 80s all over again.
- Small amount of flash memory (just 512MB) means that downloadable content is out of the question. Even my modest amount of games bought from the Virtual Console has worryingly filled up the memory.


Relationship with developers
- On paper, the cheap development costs sound like a good thing. But companies only want to maximise their profit; what better way to do this than by developing a cheap game on a cheap console and sell tonnes of units? Games like Carnival Games soared in popularity, and proved that this is the sort of game that Wii gamers want.
- 3rd parties didn’t want to work with the Wii because of this, therefore Nintendo indirectly let us down. A very large number of Wii gamers are only in it for the Wii__ and Mario franchises, and it’s simply not worth the risk of making epic-core games for the Wii, despite the reduced development costs.
- Games such as Monster Hunter Tri are great, but they are the exception to the rule. Imagine how great that game would have been if the Wii was HD?




When is the next topic going up? :)

Boring topic and too long for my attention span. :/
I suggest cutting all this want to be professional crap and start trying to be funny. Make me laugh instead of think.

Some very interesting points! Like I said, it was random. It's a shame you couldn't take part, but with that quality, I think you'll be able to take part in the next one!

Next topic will be up soon, when we've decided on the wording. Recruitment will occur here, I think.

What happened to all those people who participated in the initial thread? You can't all be offline, guys.

:-/

I call my self a gamer, I play my wii a lot, a gamer plays games whatever system they are on, and the fact that it's selling more than any other N console, towards the 90M now.