By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Gotta love the revisionist history BS about the Wii

Tagged games:

zorg1000 on 12 August 2013
Soundwave said:
zorg1000 said:
Soundwave said:
zorg1000 said:
Sounwave said:
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

Same reason most eople are -- because Mario, Mario Kart, DKC, Star Fox, Zelda, F-Zero, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Punch-Out! Advance Wars, WaveRace, are some of my favorite game franchises period. Y'know like the actual games that built Nintendo's business for over 20+ years. Those ones.

Wii Sports or Wii Fit don't even register in my top 30 favorite Nintendo games, and I'd say that's probably true for a lot of actual Nintendo fans.

I don't give two craps if the Wii would have sold 300 million units, it was a short term bubble that was bound to burst built largely on the backs of an audience that doesn't actually appreciate real games and all it did was encourage most developers to flood the system with bottom-of-the-barrel party/dance/fitness game crap.

I'll take one Resident Evil 4 or even Turok: Dinosaur Hunter over a bazillion Just Dance or Zumba Fitness Party or whatever.

But if you are still a fan of those games, then the Wii couldn't have been as bad as you describe it all the time.


I'm not saying it was bad, I just didn't see any tangiable benefit to us loyal Nintendo fans with the Wii.

Instead of getting a new Star Fox, Wave Race, F-Zero, etc. those franchises were put on ice and we were given Wii Music/Party/etc.

Gamecube didnt get Kirby, Donkey Kong or Punch-Out but Wii did, that kinda cancels out ur Star Fox, Wave Race, F-Zero argument.

The Wii also had an extra year of life cycle over the GameCube. It should have more games overall.

Those games didnt come out in Wii final year so thats kinda irrelevent

If you axe 2011 from the Wii as its final year to make it equivalent to the GameCube, then you can cut games like Skyward Sword and Kirby's Return to Dreamland from the Wii list. 

In any case, I don't care that the casuals have abandoned Nintendo. I don't want them back to be honest. The sooner Nintendo really accepts that this casual audience has screwed them over, the better for actual Nintendo fans IMO, because it will mean that Nintendo will have to undertake new initiatives to make the best of what they have now and try to grow that as best as possible.

The reliance on evergreen selling casual blockbusters and the spillover effect of that into the 2D Mario/Mario Kart franchises IMO has made Nintendo a bit lazy. They figured they could cruise through both the Wii U and 3DS launch periods without putting forth the usual effort they do in launching hardware and have been bit in the rear end hard.

Lets axe Twilight Princess from Gamecube then. The point is u said casual titles stopped core titles from coming but thats false since we got those 3 titles I listed along with Sin & Punishment in the west for the first time and even though Rainfall games were late, at least we got them.

This is like ur 50th time ranting about u not caring if casuals leave, we get it, u dont need to repeat urself that many times.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
Osc89 on 12 August 2013

Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Metallicube on 12 August 2013

They can try to rewrite history all they want. The numbers don't lie.. That's the beauty of sales #'s.. No BS, just facts.



curl-6 on 12 August 2013
Osc89 said:
Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?

The other narrative is reality; that the Wii did happen, that it was a premeditated, planned success that sold 100 million units through brilliant business decisions, not luck.



Osc89 on 13 August 2013
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?

The other narrative is reality; that the Wii did happen, that it was a premeditated, planned success that sold 100 million units through brilliant business decisions, not luck.


These narratives don't seem to be mutually exclusive though. In order to create any product there have to be numerous business decisions to determine the strategy, something that Nintendo must have got spot on for every stage of Wii development. No one can tell the future though, so there is always luck involved. They wouldn't have known what 2006 would be like in 2001.

For example, what if MS had come up with pretty much the same motion controller and sports game and released it in 2005? The Wii would have flopped, but it wouldn't mean good business decisions became bad ones. Just bad luck instead of good.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Around the Network
curl-6 on 13 August 2013
Osc89 said:
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?

The other narrative is reality; that the Wii did happen, that it was a premeditated, planned success that sold 100 million units through brilliant business decisions, not luck.


These narratives don't seem to be mutually exclusive though. In order to create any product there have to be numerous business decisions to determine the strategy, something that Nintendo must have got spot on for every stage of Wii development. No one can tell the future though, so there is always luck involved. They wouldn't have known what 2006 would be like in 2001.

For example, what if MS had come up with pretty much the same motion controller and sports game and released it in 2005? The Wii would have flopped, but it wouldn't mean good business decisions became bad ones. Just bad luck instead of good.

Of course there's always luck involved, but the narrative being pushed is that Nintendo didn't know what it was doing, took a random shot in the dark, and got undeserved success through luck alone. This isn't true, the Wii was very specifically designed and planned to do exactly what it did. They didn't hit their target by blind accident, they took careful aim and scored a bullseye. (Something they've utterly failed to do with Wii U)



Osc89 on 13 August 2013
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?

The other narrative is reality; that the Wii did happen, that it was a premeditated, planned success that sold 100 million units through brilliant business decisions, not luck.


These narratives don't seem to be mutually exclusive though. In order to create any product there have to be numerous business decisions to determine the strategy, something that Nintendo must have got spot on for every stage of Wii development. No one can tell the future though, so there is always luck involved. They wouldn't have known what 2006 would be like in 2001.

For example, what if MS had come up with pretty much the same motion controller and sports game and released it in 2005? The Wii would have flopped, but it wouldn't mean good business decisions became bad ones. Just bad luck instead of good.

Of course there's always luck involved, but the narrative being pushed is that Nintendo didn't know what it was doing, took a random shot in the dark, and got undeserved success through luck alone. This isn't true, the Wii was very specifically designed and planned to do exactly what it did. They didn't hit their target by blind accident, they took careful aim and scored a bullseye. (Something they've utterly failed to do with Wii U)


Well I agree with you completely then. I don't understand how anyone can think it was blind accident; they were clearly very focused on what they wanted the Wii to be and who they wanted it to be for.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Soundwave on 13 August 2013
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?

The other narrative is reality; that the Wii did happen, that it was a premeditated, planned success that sold 100 million units through brilliant business decisions, not luck.


These narratives don't seem to be mutually exclusive though. In order to create any product there have to be numerous business decisions to determine the strategy, something that Nintendo must have got spot on for every stage of Wii development. No one can tell the future though, so there is always luck involved. They wouldn't have known what 2006 would be like in 2001.

For example, what if MS had come up with pretty much the same motion controller and sports game and released it in 2005? The Wii would have flopped, but it wouldn't mean good business decisions became bad ones. Just bad luck instead of good.

Of course there's always luck involved, but the narrative being pushed is that Nintendo didn't know what it was doing, took a random shot in the dark, and got undeserved success through luck alone. This isn't true, the Wii was very specifically designed and planned to do exactly what it did. They didn't hit their target by blind accident, they took careful aim and scored a bullseye. (Something they've utterly failed to do with Wii U)

I would more or less agree with that, however it's hard not to admit Nintendo's overall performance in the console business post-SNES colors the discussion considerably.

If Sony's history in the game console business looked like this

Playstation 1 - 33 million LTD (ala N64)

Playstation 2 - 22 million LTD (ala GCN)

Playstation 3 - 100 million LTD (ala Wii)

Playstation 4 - just launched, epic disaster of a 1st year. (ala Wii U)

A lot of Nintendo fans would probably be inclined to say the PS3 was a bit of a fluke.

I do think the Wii was certainly an anamoly (a brilliant executed one, but an anamoly just the same). It's not a repeatable formula because it basically relies on the company coming up with some unbelievable, industry shaking idea every 5-6 years that has the same impact. It's just impossible.



curl-6 on 13 August 2013
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Of course there's always luck involved, but the narrative being pushed is that Nintendo didn't know what it was doing, took a random shot in the dark, and got undeserved success through luck alone. This isn't true, the Wii was very specifically designed and planned to do exactly what it did. They didn't hit their target by blind accident, they took careful aim and scored a bullseye. (Something they've utterly failed to do with Wii U)

I would more or less agree with that, however it's hard not to admit Nintendo's overall performance in the console business post-SNES colors the discussion considerably.

If Sony's history in the game console business looked like this

Playstation 1 - 33 million LTD (ala N64)

Playstation 2 - 22 million LTD (ala GCN)

Playstation 3 - 100 million LTD (ala Wii)

Playstation 4 - just launched, epic disaster of a 1st year. (ala Wii U)

A lot of Nintendo fans would probably be inclined to say the PS3 was a bit of a fluke.

I do think the Wii was certainly an anamoly (a brilliant executed one, but an anamoly just the same). It's not a repeatable formula because it basically relies on the company coming up with some unbelievable, industry shaking idea every 5-6 years that has the same impact. It's just impossible.

Being an amomaly doesn't make it magically not count though. Those 100 million consoles don't somehow not exist just because they defy a prior trend.



NoirSon on 13 August 2013
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
curl-6 said:
Osc89 said:
Well the Wii U isn't doing anything to help fight the "Wii was a fluke" argument. And the other statements are true, so I don't really get the thread. What is the other narrative?

The other narrative is reality; that the Wii did happen, that it was a premeditated, planned success that sold 100 million units through brilliant business decisions, not luck.


These narratives don't seem to be mutually exclusive though. In order to create any product there have to be numerous business decisions to determine the strategy, something that Nintendo must have got spot on for every stage of Wii development. No one can tell the future though, so there is always luck involved. They wouldn't have known what 2006 would be like in 2001.

For example, what if MS had come up with pretty much the same motion controller and sports game and released it in 2005? The Wii would have flopped, but it wouldn't mean good business decisions became bad ones. Just bad luck instead of good.

Of course there's always luck involved, but the narrative being pushed is that Nintendo didn't know what it was doing, took a random shot in the dark, and got undeserved success through luck alone. This isn't true, the Wii was very specifically designed and planned to do exactly what it did. They didn't hit their target by blind accident, they took careful aim and scored a bullseye. (Something they've utterly failed to do with Wii U)

I would more or less agree with that, however it's hard not to admit Nintendo's overall performance in the console business post-SNES colors the discussion considerably.

If Sony's history in the game console business looked like this

Playstation 1 - 33 million LTD (ala N64)

Playstation 2 - 22 million LTD (ala GCN)

Playstation 3 - 100 million LTD (ala Wii)

Playstation 4 - just launched, epic disaster of a 1st year. (ala Wii U)

A lot of Nintendo fans would probably be inclined to say the PS3 was a bit of a fluke.

I do think the Wii was certainly an anamoly (a brilliant executed one, but an anamoly just the same). It's not a repeatable formula because it basically relies on the company coming up with some unbelievable, industry shaking idea every 5-6 years that has the same impact. It's just impossible.

Technically, it isn't an anamoly, because what Nintendo did with the Wii in not trying to match the competitor's system's power due to the costs it would add to their development is what they had done with their handheld systems several times.

The DS vs PSP plus the Gameboy/GB Color vs GameGear/Nomad, Neo Geo Pocket/Color and Bandai's Wonder Swan/Color/Crystal. The only reason I can't say the Gameboy Advance didn't do it was because despite being stronger the N-Gage could hardly be considered a legit competitor. Heck, the PS2 was weaker then both the original Xbox and Gamecube from a technical stand point but like Nintendo had done with the Game boy and would later do with the Wii, they provided the games people wanted to play and unlike the Wii enough developers latched on to make it the baseline console despite more power being available else where.

The Wii was Nintendo coming off a bad console generation where they lost a lot of support and they took a risk no doubt influenced by the recent success of the DS and its expanding into new markets with its unique controls of a less powerful system but with unique controls. In a way, they were on the spot, at least in regards to Japan because the recent console generation MOST Japanese developers have drifted away from internally developed HD games toward handheld and mobile games due to costs. The problem is that the developers were following the Japanese consumers and those that developed popular Western games which were still selling on home consoles just stopped developing for their system or provided gimped ports hurting Nintendo's brand just as badly as the Gamecube's initial purple lunchbox look and the mini discs.

The Wii U could have sold well even with the current range of specs, Nintendo was just lazy, cheap or stupid in their preparations for HD development and didn't have the games or even the promotion to get people to want to buy units.