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

Materia-Blade said:
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.)

You would need to re-work it though, to run with Wii U's smaller RAM and less powerful processor. It makes porting harder than it could have been. 

I am sure some third parties would have snubbed it even if it was basically a PS4, but others would have at least given it vanilla ports like what Wii U got from PS3/360 early on.



Around the Network

Is this trolling or just... mal-informed?



Materia-Blade said:
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.

I mean it depends, bayonetta 2 looks extremely dated, any game that uses a "realistic art style" on wii-u looks dated.

Ofcourse... if you want to argue that they don't look dated, I can't argue with that. But that's my opinion.

There's oftentimes ulterior motives for choosing certain artstyles in games. Ofcourse no one will ever know the true reason.

 



burninmylight said:
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.

Majora's Mask wasn't a mainstream type game. It's three day cycle turned a lot of people off, also no adult link.

Do you think Twilight Princess would have been the hit it was if it had Wind Waker or Skyward Sword graphics? Be honest.



McDonaldsGuy said:
burninmylight said:
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.

Majora's Mask wasn't a mainstream type game. It's three day cycle turned a lot of people off, also no adult link.

Do you think Twilight Princess would have been the hit it was if it had Wind Waker or Skyward Sword graphics? Be honest.

So you honestly believe the timing of the releases of MM and SW, along with the fact that they required extra hardware as a barrier to entry had nothing to do with their sales? Be honest.

Do I think WW or SS would have sold like TP if they released in TP's place? WW, no. SS, yes. Like I said, Wind Waker was hated with extreme prejudice before release because of Nintendo's bait-and-switch in 2001 with the Spaceworld demo. I know how it felt because I was one of those people. I hated the game without ever having played it until I finally gave it a try on a demo unit in Gamestop. Now, it's one of the most beloved Zelda games. Meanwhile, TP is scorned and panned as being unoriginal with ugly ass graphics and a horrible swordplay system on the Wii.

Skyward Sword would have absolutely been a commercial and critical success in 2005 (assuming the Wiimote could handle it at the time and didn't need the WM+). After all, it was a critical success in 2011, at the very end of the Wii's life. Go look up any review except Gamespot's.

You claim to be such a big Wii fan, yet you can't seem to remember the motion control craze that swept the world in 2005. We were absolutely swept up in the idea of 1:1 swordplay in the future and salivating for such a game. By the time SS released in 2011, that dream had waned and motion controls became a bad term, but imagine if it released right when it was the hot thing. People would have been rioting in the streets for some 1:1 swordplay Zelda.

The only reason TP sold the way it did was because a) It launched with the Wii, and people needed something to play besides Wii Sports, and b) it was the closest thing to realistic motion controlled combat out at the time. Why do you think Red Steel, a game that was complete trash, sold so well? Because a) It launched with the Wii, and people needed something to play besides Wii Sports, and b) it was the closest thing to realistic motion controlled combat out at the time. So what, are you telling me that Red Steel 1 is superior to Skyward Sword and Wind Waker because it has a realistic and "mature" art style?



Around the Network

Directly from my Wii U gamepad, i care about the gamepad. Most of my activity with the Wii U comes from it. In bed surfing the internet, watching youtube and i could play games if i wanted while my other half sleeps next to me. Its perfect in that regard.

Not perfect for the gaming itself but it sure adds to the value of the console.



burninmylight said:

.

So you honestly believe the timing of the releases of MM and SW, along with the fact that they required extra hardware as a barrier to entry had nothing to do with their sales? Be honest.

Do I think WW or SS would have sold like TP if they released in TP's place? WW, no. SS, yes. Like I said, Wind Waker was hated with extreme prejudice before release because of Nintendo's bait-and-switch in 2001 with the Spaceworld demo. I know how it felt because I was one of those people. I hated the game without ever having played it until I finally gave it a try on a demo unit in Gamestop. Now, it's one of the most beloved Zelda games. Meanwhile, TP is scorned and panned as being unoriginal with ugly ass graphics and a horrible swordplay system on the Wii.

Skyward Sword would have absolutely been a commercial and critical success in 2005 (assuming the Wiimote could handle it at the time and didn't need the WM+). After all, it was a critical success in 2011, at the very end of the Wii's life. Go look up any review except Gamespot's.

You claim to be such a big Wii fan, yet you can't seem to remember the motion control craze that swept the world in 2005. We were absolutely swept up in the idea of 1:1 swordplay in the future and salivating for such a game. By the time SS released in 2011, that dream had waned and motion controls became a bad term, but imagine if it released right when it was the hot thing. People would have been rioting in the streets for some 1:1 swordplay Zelda.

The only reason TP sold the way it did was because a) It launched with the Wii, and people needed something to play besides Wii Sports, and b) it was the closest thing to realistic motion controlled combat out at the time. Why do you think Red Steel, a game that was complete trash, sold so well? Because a) It launched with the Wii, and people needed something to play besides Wii Sports, and b) it was the closest thing to realistic motion controlled combat out at the time. So what, are you telling me that Red Steel 1 is superior to Skyward Sword and Wind Waker because it has a realistic and "mature" art style?

People got used to the Wind Waker's graphics pretty quickly - they weren't that bad. Skyward Sword though looks so generic and cartoonish, but not the good kind of cartoon (like Wind Waker). It just looked... bland.

That's why during the Skyward Sword reveal people were like "Huh?" Compared to Twilight Princess which nearly broke down the internet. I remember those days. People were so excited about TP's art style. It's what sold the game. If Skyward Sword had been released instead of it, it wouldn't have got nearly as much hype. The fact is it didn't get really any hype when it was released at all.

Once again, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE2Dc1sx71U

Then compare it to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmcBXgnrC8 (go to the 2:20 mark)

The first video pretty much explains everybody's reaction. By the way, that video was before the Wii reveal. When a fan made Twilight Princess with Skyward Sword graphics pretty much everyone said it was terrible.

Skyward Sword's art style was very dull. It had a Saturday morning cartoon vibe to it.



I'm with McDonaldsGuy on the Zelda art style issue.
Gamers, mainstream gamers, want a darker Zelda. Only a subset of Nintendo fans want a cartoon one.
There are far more mainstream gamers than Nintendo fans.



Stopped reading at "weaker than 360"

This is 2015, not 2012, even die hard Nintendo hating trolls are tired of this sort of crud being repeated ad infinitum.

And once again with the dumb" art style is the most important contributer to Zelda sales" argument.

Amazing.



 

ishiki said:



I mean it depends, bayonetta 2 looks extremely dated, any game that uses a "realistic art style" on wii-u looks dated.

Ofcourse... if you want to argue that they don't look dated, I can't argue with that. But that's my opinion.

There's oftentimes ulterior motives for choosing certain artstyles in games. Ofcourse no one will ever know the true reason.

 

That's the thing, they shouldn't be thinking in terms of "outdated" or anything like that. OOT may be more "outdated" than the Wind Waker in terms of graphics but OOT 3D creamed Wind Waker HD in sales.