Quantcast
The Wii U is the only console to ever baffle me

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Wii U is the only console to ever baffle me

EvenLuck said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
EvenLuck said:

danasider said:

Games like Super Mario 3d World or 8 player Smash (yes, 4 player Smash is online) could have definitely done better with an online experience considering they are multiplayer games.


Smash, I can agree with, because that's the core of the franchise. However, do tell me how Super Mario 3D World would be better with an online experience? 


It's a multiplayer game

Ok, let me rephrase: why would Super Mario 3D World be better with an online experience? 


Don't know if you missed my response a few posts above, so I'll reply again.

Instead of having 4 people required to be next to each other, 4 people could play (online) co-op at the comfort of their own homes with strangers or friends. It's not something that would make or break the game, just the fact that a AAA first party top tier game like Super Mario 3d World doesn't offer it is disappointing.



Around the Network
danasider said:
EvenLuck said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
EvenLuck said:

danasider said:

Games like Super Mario 3d World or 8 player Smash (yes, 4 player Smash is online) could have definitely done better with an online experience considering they are multiplayer games.


Smash, I can agree with, because that's the core of the franchise. However, do tell me how Super Mario 3D World would be better with an online experience? 


It's a multiplayer game

Ok, let me rephrase: why would Super Mario 3D World be better with an online experience? 


Don't know if you missed my response a few posts above, so I'll reply again.

Instead of having 4 people required to be next to each other, 4 people could play (online) co-op at the comfort of their own homes with strangers or friends. It's not something that would make or break the game, just the fact that a AAA first party top tier game like Super Mario 3d World doesn't offer it is disappointing.

Alright, HOW is that disappointing?



Chubomik said:
cyberninja45 said:

Well he is right on most things.

The gamepad is the wiiu biggest problem, I can't believe people are still trying to defend it.

He is also totally right about super mario 3d world, I remember when I first saw the reveal and stream was sticking I honestly thought it was sequel for 3d land on the 3ds until I confirmed after it was wiiu the letdown was beyond measurable. Then I heard great things about the game especially here on vgchartz, I even remember someone saying it reaches the heights of mario galaxy.

I got the game along with my wiiu and I can tell you that I honestly believe people were genuinely lying about the game, anybody that says some BS about this being one of the best mario they ever played are lying out of their teeth, or never played any other mario.

This game is absolutely no way a mario galaxy, 64 nothing, its exactly what I thought of in the reveal a follow up to 3d land lazily ported across to the wiiu. I can tell you anybody that says otherwise are genuinely lying about the game.

Now I enjoyed 3d land on my 3ds but super mario 3d world does not belong on a home console ever, especially nintendo's first HD console.

Edit- The new zelda artstyle looks really good though.


And theres this guy.

There is so much more to 3D Worldthan a copy-pasted 3D Land. The multiple characters add just enough to the gameplay where I wanted to complete each stage with each one, maybe finding a different way of completing it. The level design was way more expansive and open compared to 3D Land's condensed focus for portable pleasure. It allowed for level design that was a lot more stimulating for a console game. It's also bursting with its own sense of originality all over the place.

And on the subject of it comparing to other 3D entries in the series, I don't think you can. 3D World's entire concept inherantly keeps it from being on the same scope as Mario Galaxy. 3D game with 2D archetypes. With that in mind, I like to think of 3D World on its own merits. I reccomend Somecallmejohnny's review of it. It might make you see it in a new perspective.

Also, calling people who liked a game that you don't "liars"? That's just unnecessary and close-minded. I'm surprised you didn't get yourself modded for that.

Wow, that got sidetracked from the OP...

I may not agree with him, but he does demonstrate beautifully how Nintendo fucked up their first party software on Wii U.

The average gamer did not want 3D Mario in HD to be a sequel to a 3DS game, they wanted Mario 64-2, Galaxy 3, or something equally grand and "epic". No matter how good 3D World was, it was doomed from the start because the core concept was not desirable.

Same goes for Tropical Freeze; it was a game the mainstream never wanted or asked for.

Nintendo foolishly made the games they wanted to make, rather than the games consumers wanted them to make.



EvenLuck said:
danasider said:
EvenLuck said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
EvenLuck said:

danasider said:

Games like Super Mario 3d World or 8 player Smash (yes, 4 player Smash is online) could have definitely done better with an online experience considering they are multiplayer games.


Smash, I can agree with, because that's the core of the franchise. However, do tell me how Super Mario 3D World would be better with an online experience? 


It's a multiplayer game

Ok, let me rephrase: why would Super Mario 3D World be better with an online experience? 


Don't know if you missed my response a few posts above, so I'll reply again.

Instead of having 4 people required to be next to each other, 4 people could play (online) co-op at the comfort of their own homes with strangers or friends. It's not something that would make or break the game, just the fact that a AAA first party top tier game like Super Mario 3d World doesn't offer it is disappointing.

Alright, HOW is that disappointing?

First of all, to clarify one thing (don't know if you even read it this way), I don't mean the game, itself, is disappointing. It has critical acclaim and Nintendo pedigry so I am not trashing the game.

The lack of an online experience is disappointing, because it seems like a logical feature for a game like this. Four people can play on 1 screen, but for some reason Nintendo didn't add the option for a person to enjoy that co-op feature online.

Say a person doesn't have people to play with around him/her, said person could go online and play some Mario co-op with either some strangers or friends that aren't local. Without the option, I am sure a good deal of people are missing out on the multiplayer aspect of this game.



Chubomik said:

You can honestly look straight into Tim Lockwood's eyes and say that Zelda U's art style is, "ugly"?

 

cyberninja45 said:

Well he is right on most things.

The gamepad is the wiiu biggest problem, I can't believe people are still trying to defend it.

He is also totally right about super mario 3d world, I remember when I first saw the reveal and stream was sticking I honestly thought it was sequel for 3d land on the 3ds until I confirmed after it was wiiu the letdown was beyond measurable. Then I heard great things about the game especially here on vgchartz, I even remember someone saying it reaches the heights of mario galaxy.

I got the game along with my wiiu and I can tell you that I honestly believe people were genuinely lying about the game, anybody that says some BS about this being one of the best mario they ever played are lying out of their teeth, or never played any other mario.

This game is absolutely no way a mario galaxy, 64 nothing, its exactly what I thought of in the reveal a follow up to 3d land lazily ported across to the wiiu. I can tell you anybody that says otherwise are genuinely lying about the game.

Now I enjoyed 3d land on my 3ds but super mario 3d world does not belong on a home console ever, especially nintendo's first HD console.

Edit- The new zelda artstyle looks really good though.


And theres this guy.

There is so much more to 3D Worldthan a copy-pasted 3D Land. The multiple characters add just enough to the gameplay where I wanted to complete each stage with each one, maybe finding a different way of completing it. The level design was way more expansive and open compared to 3D Land's condensed focus for portable pleasure. It allowed for level design that was a lot more stimulating for a console game. It's also bursting with its own sense of originality all over the place.

And on the subject of it comparing to other 3D entries in the series, I don't think you can. 3D World's entire concept inherantly keeps it from being on the same scope as Mario Galaxy. 3D game with 2D archetypes. With that in mind, I like to think of 3D World on its own merits. I reccomend Somecallmejohnny's review of it. It might make you see it in a new perspective.

Also, calling people who liked a game that you don't "liars"? That's just unnecessary and close-minded. I'm surprised you didn't get yourself modded for that.

Wow, that got sidetracked from the OP...


THIS THIS THIS

This right here is what I am talking about, the game is literally a mario 3d land sequel with multiplayer tacked on but people are making it out for more than what it actually is. I can understand if people want to enjoy 3d land on a bigger screen, no problem with me, but don't make the game out to be more than what it is.

Also I hope nobody falls for buzz lines like "It allowed for level design that was a lot more stimulating for a console game" and " It's also bursting with its own sense of originality all over the place".



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



Around the Network
cyberninja45 said:
Chubomik said:

You can honestly look straight into Tim Lockwood's eyes and say that Zelda U's art style is, "ugly"?

 

cyberninja45 said:

Well he is right on most things.

The gamepad is the wiiu biggest problem, I can't believe people are still trying to defend it.

He is also totally right about super mario 3d world, I remember when I first saw the reveal and stream was sticking I honestly thought it was sequel for 3d land on the 3ds until I confirmed after it was wiiu the letdown was beyond measurable. Then I heard great things about the game especially here on vgchartz, I even remember someone saying it reaches the heights of mario galaxy.

I got the game along with my wiiu and I can tell you that I honestly believe people were genuinely lying about the game, anybody that says some BS about this being one of the best mario they ever played are lying out of their teeth, or never played any other mario.

This game is absolutely no way a mario galaxy, 64 nothing, its exactly what I thought of in the reveal a follow up to 3d land lazily ported across to the wiiu. I can tell you anybody that says otherwise are genuinely lying about the game.

Now I enjoyed 3d land on my 3ds but super mario 3d world does not belong on a home console ever, especially nintendo's first HD console.

Edit- The new zelda artstyle looks really good though.


And theres this guy.

There is so much more to 3D Worldthan a copy-pasted 3D Land. The multiple characters add just enough to the gameplay where I wanted to complete each stage with each one, maybe finding a different way of completing it. The level design was way more expansive and open compared to 3D Land's condensed focus for portable pleasure. It allowed for level design that was a lot more stimulating for a console game. It's also bursting with its own sense of originality all over the place.

And on the subject of it comparing to other 3D entries in the series, I don't think you can. 3D World's entire concept inherantly keeps it from being on the same scope as Mario Galaxy. 3D game with 2D archetypes. With that in mind, I like to think of 3D World on its own merits. I reccomend Somecallmejohnny's review of it. It might make you see it in a new perspective.

Also, calling people who liked a game that you don't "liars"? That's just unnecessary and close-minded. I'm surprised you didn't get yourself modded for that.

Wow, that got sidetracked from the OP...


THIS THIS THIS

This right here is what I am talking about, the game is literally a mario 3d land sequel with multiplayer tacked on but people are making it out for more than what it actually is. I can understand if people want to enjoy 3d land on a bigger screen, no problem with me, but don't make the game out to be more than what it is.

Also I hope nobody falls for buzz lines like "It allowed for level design that was a lot more stimulating for a console game" and " It's also bursting with its own sense of originality all over the place".


Why did I even bother. Keep those fingers plugged in your ears, bud



curl-6 said:
Materia-Blade said:

everything bolded was ok, the games were great.

The games were indeed great, but they weren't what the mainstream gamer wanted. And while I'm perfectly happy with it, the power level did damage its reputation and prevent it from getting PS4/Xbone multiplats.

The power level allows it to receive any current gen game, thus, it's not the reason why multiplats aren't coming (read the unprofessional third parties above.)



ishiki said:

3D world is the only mario I've loved since Mario 64... and my 3rd favorite mario game.

I have no reason to lie.

The agree with the OP mostly.

Zelda Being cell shaded imo, is partially because they have to imo. They can't do a realistic take because it would look terribly dated at release. Whereas, if they do the cell shading, they can hide behind

They are doing cell shaded (characters only, so far) because they think is the right style. and it wouldn't look dated at all if it was taking a realistic aproach.



McDonaldsGuy said:

When Sony was screwing up with the PS3, it was clearly arrogance. Their PR proves that - "People will buy a PS3 even if it had no games." "People will have to get 2 jobs to get a PS3." "The PS3 is too cheap." The $599 price, lack of rumble (last gen tech), loss of third party exclusives (GTA, FF, DMC, Tekken, etc. etc.), crappy first/second party games, etc. etc. But by 2009 Sony did a complete rebranding and made a complete comeback that carried momentum to the PS4.

It's a shame cause the Wii was my favorite console last gen, and the 3DS is amazing.  I predicted the Wii U would sell 40 million (admittedly I let some outside factors influence me - my original prediction was 25 million), but it'll be lucky to get half of that (it won't). I am a HUGE Nintendo fan.

On the other hand, Nintendo the past 4 years have gone insane. Have they done anything right?

- New Super Mario Bros. U and Nintendo Land do not have online. In 2012 this was unacceptable I didn't miss the online part nut launching a console with a 2d platformer and a party game isn't the best possible start.

- The weak hardware. What the heck Nintendo? It made sense for the Wii because of the controller. The Wii U does not have that luxury. They couldn't give us at least something that could be ALMOST near the PS4/One? Maybe a Dreamcast to the PS2? Instead we get something weaker than the Xbox 360 and PS3 and then Nintendo charges us $349 for it! What the heck were they thinking? Unbelievable. The hardware is not much more or less powerful than X360, although a game with the graphical level of Uncharted 3/GOW 3 has yet to arrive and for the pricetag the difference in power between the Xone and the U is a comedy

- The gamepad controller. Appeals to no one. The Wiimote appealed to non-gamers (and even hardcore gamers). Not even Nintendo is utilizing it. Did they just throw it on cause tablets were popular at the time with no planning? Probably. When I first saw them unveil the controller I thought it was a joke, and that it was a complimentary controller. When they were serious about it the next year I made like 3 threads (on different forums) asking what was going on and no one knew. Everyone was just as confused as I was. The biggest mistake of all especially consider it is rarely good used including launch where the wii mote did shine and the screen is way to big and toyish to sell, a smaller PSP like controller would sell much better since it would be seen as a cheap gimick. And god why a freaking touchscreen.
- The name. Nuff said. Yep
- Their online still sucks True enough especially random smash is laggy as hell with friends is pretty good though
- Super Mario 3D World isn't what gamers wanted. We wanted a Super Mario 64/Galaxy type game in HD, imagine how glorious it would have been. The sales reflect that. 3D World is probably a great game but it doesn't have near the appeal 64/Galaxy type game would have. Also no online multiplayer - Nintendo are you kidding me? I couldn't care less about MP but a nintendo console without a real super mario entry is a huge mistake (No 3d world is not compareable with galaxy).
- Zelda cel shaded. Ugly graphics. Their E3 2012 demo looked so cool.  Instead we get an ugly cartoon that looks like it's trying to be between Wind Waker and OOT/TP. Also, Zelda - like Metroid - is supposed to have the more "realistic" graphics because even Nintendo admitted it themselves. There is an event in Melee where you fight Nintendo's "realistic" characters and Link is among them! This Zelda will not be a big hit. Compare it to Twilight Princess which is the most hyped Zelda of all time. Art Zelda's tent to sell less than real life looking Zelda's MM and OOT where real looking for that time,
- No console Pokemon. Seriously could sell a billion, and Pokemon amiibos? Trading card game fad all over again. Instead Nintendo is content with letting the Wii U fail. A 3rd person pokemon RPG on console would probably fail
- Amiibos. No point outside collecting them. My thoughts exactly
- Smash Bros. 4 , came out way too late (2 years after release) and no 8 player online play? Sad. They couldn't even give this game a subtitle. It isn't to late but either MK a real super mario or an ssb should be released within 12 months form release.
- Retro Studios not being used to full potential. This dev team could possibly bring us a new FPS game that will blow our rocks off, instead we are given Donkey Kong Country: TF which had no online play. It also flopped badly in sales. Good. Set one of your most talented developers on a 2d platformer of which you have plenty already good thinking Nintendo, and people wonder why they say you lost tocuch. 
- Game droughts because they didn't prepare for HD. LMAO HD consoles have been around since 2005 and they were caught off guard (like devs were from 05-08) and they didn't prepare? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?!?!!? Now they have had massive gaming droughts. This is the first time we won't get a Zelda console 2 years after console release. No excuse here
- No new IPs. Splatoon is like their only new IP this gen. Nintendo could do that for the Wii (even though the Wii had a couple new IPs) because of the Wiimote, but Nintendo needs to start expanding its library ASAP. Gamers don't get as excited for Smash Bros. or Zelda as they did in 2006-08. I also noticed that
- Scaring away third parties. Nintendo made billions of cash from the Wii and DS. That probably could have bought some good exclusives from third parties and could've helped them out a bit as well. Instead Nintendo scares them away. Could have solved the draughts and made the Wii U sell much more.
- The Virtual Console STILL hasn't even reached a third of its potential. Not even a tenth the console everyone wants on it the GC is replaced by GBA games, imagine F-zero gx on the gamepad.
- No more E3 presentations They got directs so not to much of a point if you've nothing to announce.

Added: No achievements, buying Sonic as its third party exclusive

Now the good things Nintendo has done with the Wii U:

- Mario Kart 8. Came out at a good time (Mario Karts tend to come out 1.5-2 years after a console release) and was a hit and really good It secured the 15 million mark
- Saving Bayonetta 2 In gaming perspective yes, in business nope
- Nothing else, Releasing high quality titles even if they are not innovative or what the market demands

Nintendo in the Wii era seemed like geniuses. Porting Twilight Princess to the Wii was a genius move. Packing Wii Sports? Wow. Packing Nintendo Land? Wow, but not the good kind of wow. We finally get a Nintendo HD console and we get Mario 3D World and a cel shaded Zelda rather than epic games. Nice summary even though 3d world is awesome it just hasn't the appeal as galaxy.

Did Nintendo become arrogant or something? And think they can do no wrong? What was their gameplan with the Wii U? Every decision they have made this gen has baffled me.





Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

McDonaldsGuy said:


Actually it proves my point even more so. The fact is the power of the Wii U should be made 100% clear, instead it's a debate: is it more powerful or not? That's a question that should NOT have been asked in 2012, and it should NOT have cost $349. For $349 it should have been CLEARLY more powerful than the 360 and PS3.

And Skyward Sword's sales are definitely reflective of its ugly art style. Don't believe me? Compare Wind Waker HD sales to OOT 3D sales - clear difference. Don't believe me still? Look at the reaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE2Dc1sx71U People were ESTATIC for Twilight Princess. On the other hand Skyward Sword got a huge "Oh come on!" when revealed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmcBXgnrC8 go to 2:20 mark).

People want a REALISTIC Zelda, they have made this clear.

No, it's just you pulling anything that sounds like someone may buy it out of your ass. The Wii U's power was always 100 percent clear to any informed, unbiased observer. Let's review some of the reasons people believed the Wii U was or could have been weaker than PS360:

  1. The Wii was so pathetically weak compared to the other consoles in its generation and was basically an overclocked GameCube or Xbox. A lot of people believed the Wii U would follow suit (which it did, just not as bad as some thought).

  2. When rumors of the console's specs were leaked, the Wii U featured a CPU with a clock speed lower than that of PS360, so the less tech-oriented assumed, "SEE! THIS IS CLEER EVADANCE! THE CPU IS WEAKER, SO THE WHOLE THING IS WEEKER!." Then rumours of the X1 started creeping out as well, and lo and behold, most of them pegged it having a CPU only slight quicker than the 360. That's when the self-appointed tech heads of this site began informing the rest of us that modern CPUs don't need the raw processing power of yesteryear; they're just more efficient, see? Meanwhile, the damage on Wii U's reputation for power was done before it even shipped to stores.

  3. There were no launch games that showed off what the system is capable of. NSMBU, Nintendoland and third party ports of PS360 games from the likes of EA and Ubisoft aren't where any sane person would look to for a graphical showcase of the Wii U. Just like all the third party ports and launch games on the PS360 weren't exactly graphical showcases either. Go look at any thread from 2005 and you can find people questioning the graphical difference between OG Xbox and 360, or threads from '06-'08 asking why the PS4 costs $100 more for shittier versions of games that barely run. Yet, people forgot those consoles' early struggles once the Wii U came out.

The fact that you still, until yesterday, didn't know the Wii U is more powerful than PS360 tells me all I need to know about how well you follow gaming news or the Wii U, specifically. There are several more examples I could have pointed out, but that one alone just made your credibility drop like a stone. If you can't make a thread with informed, up-to-date information to back up your rant, then please don't waste anyone's time. There are plenty of other threads on this site or elsewhere on the Internet more worthwhile.

And getting back to Zelda, ooh, wow, let's compare a remake of what many still consider the best game of all time (and best-selling game in the series) on what is currently the most popular gaming console to the remake of a game that pissed many people off in 2001 because of Nintendo's E3 bait-and-switch that released on what looks to be Nintendo's second worst selling console of all time, along with the remake releasing on what is looking more and more like Nintendo's least popular console of all time. That is a totally fair comparison!

Let's go for a far more valid comparison: OOT (N64) vs. Majora's Mask (N64).

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=legend+of+zelda

Explain to me why MM only sold almost exactly half of what Ocarina of Time did? They were on the exact same system; if you bought the former, you could have had the latter. They weren't remakes. And most importantly, to fit in with your logic, they have the exact same engine and art style. THE EXACT SAME. So why did the game that uses the exact same style as the most critically acclaimed and commerciallly successful game in the entire series have such a huge dropoff?

I told you why already, and it's for the exact same reason as Twilight Princess. It came out way at the end of its consoles life cycle, when the thing was almost in the grave, and required extra hardware that added an extra 10 bucks on top of the cost of the game. Hardware that most people knew would hardly be used afterward.

Spare me your anecdotal evidence, please. A couple of YT video does not represent the entire informed gaming community. Any Zelda fan will tell you about the "Zelda Cycle," in which the fandom gets hyped for a new game, hates the previous game, pans the new game upon release, suddenly finds a new passion for the old games.