Quantcast
Bitterness in the Wii fandom?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bitterness in the Wii fandom?

forest-spirit said:
This thread irritates me in the way "PS3 fanboys are the worst"-topics do.
A minority of the fanbase are very vocal and thus some people see the whole fanbase as idiots.


You know what, I'm sick and tired of this, I am just a gamer who happens to prefer Wii but I'm not some fanatic who praise Nintendo everytime they open their mouth. I don't lick Reggie's toes.

Some Nintendo fans really are annoying in how they drop all logic and sense in defending their God and take every bit of criticism against Nintendo as a terrorist attack. I hate it, not only is it annoying to see these people use the company I love just to defend their own egos, but it makes some people think all Nintendo fans behave like that, and we get "Nintendo fans are ignorant", "Nintendo fans are blind", etc.
(This can be applied to the fanbase of Microsoft and Sony as well.)

Something else I'm tired of hearing is that I'm ignorant or an idiot for being satisfied with the library my console of choice have. I'm perfectly fine with the games I can get for the Wii, and I'll probably not have enough time to play through all the games I want before this gen is over. That's just me, it's because of my taste in gaming.
Everyone will not be satisfied in owning only Wii though, I'm fully aware of that, I wouldn't be satisfied in owning only a 360 or a PS3 because I want to play Metroid and Zelda, but again, it's because of my taste and I won't hate on other people for not sharing my opinion. That would just make me look like an idiot and show how limited I am.

End of meltdown. Now I'm gonna have some bitter cake.

Clap, Clap, Clap.

 

I agree with you, is only a small fraction of nintendo fans that are acting this way, and I really like the way you presented this and your reason to having a WII is the right one in my opinion. Also Im glad that you showed me that not all the Nintento fans in the forums are acting the same way. thanks It gives me hope that this nonsense will stop someday. I apologize to YOU for what I said because you are not like that but honestly Im tired of every topic being about the WII third party situation and how the WII deserves every game known to man, when so many good things are happening all around.

Gamers love your console and buy you console if you like what it has and forget about everything else, this is a hobby and we are supposed to enjoy it



Around the Network
theRepublic said:
Carl2291 said:

Would all depend on how you defne "big". But anyway...

That's the whole point of what im saying. Why would the 3rd parties bother to make big huge blockbuster games for Wii, when party games are outselling certain efforts by 2:1 (in the lowest case) and making millions upon millions... When those said blockbusters are selling so well on PS360?

I'll give you an example, using a big hit game you gave me.
Call of Duty: World at War (launched day and date with PS360 versions) - 1.40M (PS3 - 3.81 360 - 6.15)
Carnival Games, Game Party, Deca Sports - 3.54M, 2.17M, 2.14M

Now, what impression do you think that has on developers?

Do you notice how all those minigame collections you used were all released early in the Wii's life and their sequels have performed poorly?  It is clear that consumers do not want any more of those.

This CoD: World at War thing has been done to death, but sure, let's go over it again.  CoD 3 on the Wii outsold the PS3 version.  The next year, the PS3 and 360 get the break-out hit CoD 4: Modern Warfare, while the Wii gets nothing.  Then, the following year, all the consoles get W@W.  The difference here is that W@W got to ride on the success of MW on the PS3 and 360, but not on the Wii.  Then of course there is the removed features on the Wii version of W@W that make it less desirable.

It is just more of what we have seen for the past three generations.  Third party publishers treat Nintendo consoles like a red-headed step-child, and expect the same results as they get on other consoles.  It is ridiculous.

I could name a few recent ones that are managing to sell pretty well. 

I can understand the lack of CoD4 hurting the WaW sales on Wii, but what was the reason for a lack of CoD4?

WHY do they treat Ninty like that?



Carl2291 said:

It's not possible to give them the features that were on the HD versions. We both know this. As for effort, the game was good enough... It's better than The Conduit, which was a hyped up exclusive.

Huh? What features are not possible on Wii? And why does that matter, it would still be a point that makes the comparison unfair anyway.

 

Glad you brought up The Conduit, isn't it a perfect illustration of the problem? Why would anyone hype up a generic game being made by a little developer with no track record in core games? Because there was no serious third party support! People were excited even at the prospect of these newbies making a first person shooter because nobody was making serious attempts at core games.

 

Would you hype up The Conduit if it was announced for the PS3? Why the hell would you unless you were starved for core games?



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

Carl2291 said:
Wyrdness said:
Carl2291 said:
Wyrdness said:
Carl2291 said:
Innervate said:
Carl2291 said:
Innervate said:
Carl2291 said:
guiduc said:
BladeOfGod said:
they are just jealous cuz they're not getting Batman AA, RE5, DMC4, Bioshock, MW2 ( maybe in 2014 ), AC 2, Bayonetta and lots of other awesome 3rd party games

Could you stop trolling here?

If you were in that situation, maybe you too you would be angry. We just don't get the games we deserve. We can only count on Nintendo, unfortunately.

That's the thing though. Why do you automatically "deserve" those games? Because of the Wii sales?

The bigger install base having the best 3rd party support has always been the case, why is it suddenly a problem now that Nintendo is back on top? It's a little thing called 'common sense'; a bigger install base means more potential sales.

The bigger install base isn't seen as the Wii, it is seen as the (as the industry puts it)... "HD Twins". Which have a greater market share than Wii, and also share a whole bunch of the same "core" fanbase.

You're making the mistake in not taking into account multiple console ownership. Even ignoring that, like others have stated the Wii could have the same market share as the PS2 and would still have the same support. We have already pointed out the many flaws in your argument, so if you do not wish to revise it I don't see a point in continuing this argument.

Why should i take into account "multiple console ownership"? The fact is, HD has a greater marketshare than Wii. That's why the majority of games releasing on the 2 consoles are shared.

No it wouldn't stay the same, because if it had that marketshare it would have the mix of all fans/gamers... Just like PS2 did. Developers would HAVE to support it.

What flaws?...


You should take it into account because numerous people own both 360/PS3s so in effect your logic is flawed, if the are 30m 360s sold and 20m PS3s it doesn't mean that the are 50m potential customers which is why your attempt to group them together to mask market share is coming off a bit silly.

The fact is there are more PS3's and 360's out there than Wii's. There is a bigger PS360 marketshare than there is Wii marketshare. Fact.


Wrong the fact is market share is done by individual consoles because if the are 60m PS3s and 360s out there and 10m own both consoles it doesn't mean the are 60m customers for the HD twins as you put and thus the market share becomes lower then the Wii hence the flaw in your argument fact.

Doing that would be pointless, as there is no way to tell how mnay people have both. It could also be argued that the marketshare is severely flawed and skewed because of multiple console owners, but we don't see anyone ever bringing that one up do we? That's why im saying there are more PS3's and 360's out there than there are Wii's. Developers don't see how many people own the said console, they see how many consoles are out there.


No doing that is how it's always been done and you still fail to understand the flaw in your argument, you are taking the total sold of two consoles and using it as market share and saying the userbase is bigger then the Wii, on paper it's more then the Wii but in practice a fair number of people own both PS3s and 360s while you are only comparing the Wii market share so the multiple console flaw won't apply to the Wii in this argument as you've grouped it by itself in your comparison. effectively if only 5m people own both a 360 and PS3 it still makes the practical number of consumers available less then the Wii and thus market share gets a hit and it's here where the flaw is.

Carl2291 said:
Demotruk said:
Carl2291 said:

2 year late ports, yes. But the highest quality games of there genre also.

Unarcadey rail shooters? Call of Duty... "Unarcedey rail shooter"? And you think you deserve these games?

I thought you were referring to the other Resident Evil games, I made a mistake. One that was of little consequence but you capitalized on it for a bit of ad hominem anyway.

Do you think the Wii Call of Duty's (forgetting 3 since it sucked generally, it's not like it sold great on PS3) compare in the sort of effort or even features that were put into the HD versions? One of them is a gimped port, the other is a two year late gimped port. Even if it weren't gimped, the game was designed to be played on the HD consoles and suffers on Wii for it.

It's not possible to give them the features that were on the HD versions. We both know this. As for effort, the game was good enough... It's better than The Conduit, which was a hyped up exclusive.

The COD games on the Wii are not better than the Conduit, and I don't understand why people keep saying this. They sell more because they are an estbalished name.

The effort was "good enough"? So having a very small team rushing a port of COD4 in 6-8 months is enough effort? You're unintentionally saying that the Wii isn't worth putting any real effort into.



Around the Network

What anthor thread about wii should get X because of X reason. Come on guys you aren't talking with delvopers. Your talking to people who have no saying in the industry. It doesn't matter if you win or lose. Give up. You can't change somone. Did people in the NES days complain that they lacked 3rd party support. No(maybe but we had no internet) The fight isn't worth it.



Tag:I'm not bias towards Nintendo. You just think that way (Admin note - it's "biased".  Not "bias")
(killeryoshis note - Who put that there ?)
Switch is 9th generation. Everyone else is playing on last gen systems!

Biggest pikmin fan on VGchartz I won from a voting poll
I am not a nerd. I am enthusiast.  EN-THU-SI-AST!
Do Not Click here or else I will call on the eye of shinning justice on you. 

Carl2291 said:

Doing that would be pointless, as there is no way to tell how mnay people have both. It could also be argued that the marketshare is severely flawed and skewed because of multiple console owners, but we don't see anyone ever bringing that one up do we? That's why im saying there are more PS3's and 360's out there than there are Wii's. Developers don't see how many people own the said console, they see how many consoles are out there.

Well, we can say that it's impossible that there is no overlap, and the overlap has to take up some part of the userbase. Then, considering how close the ratio between Wii and PS3 + 360, they are roughly equal regardless.

I don't think the developers are going to care the small difference (and in statistic, there's room for error), so even if you combine the two HD consoles together and ignoring the overlap, the userbase argument does not hold.



I'm an ALIEN!!!! - officially identified as by Konnichiwa

Of course... My English is still... horrible - appreciation and thanks to FJ-Warez  

Brawl FC: 0301-9911-8154

Demotruk said:
Carl2291 said:

It's not possible to give them the features that were on the HD versions. We both know this. As for effort, the game was good enough... It's better than The Conduit, which was a hyped up exclusive.

Huh? What features are not possible on Wii? And why does that matter, it would still be a point that makes the comparison unfair anyway.

Glad you brought up The Conduit, isn't it a perfect illustration of the problem? Why would anyone hype up a generic game being made by a little developer with no track record in core games? Because there was no serious third party support! People were excited even at the prospect of these newbies making a first person shooter because nobody was making serious attempts at core games.

Would you hype up The Conduit if it was announced for the PS3? Why the hell would you unless you were starved for core games?

To be honest, there aren't really much features missing from the Wii version... There is of course the visuals, and a better online experience, but i wouldn't say they are features.

Games like that DO get hyped, it's just the small games that get hyped on PS3 are usually some exclusive first party game or known developer. 3D Dot Game Heroes, for example.

I understand the Wii is missing a whole bunch of core games like The Conduit, but what i actually started arguing about... Was why i think the Wii wasn't getting these games.



Carl2291 said:
theRepublic said:
Carl2291 said:

Would all depend on how you defne "big". But anyway...

That's the whole point of what im saying. Why would the 3rd parties bother to make big huge blockbuster games for Wii, when party games are outselling certain efforts by 2:1 (in the lowest case) and making millions upon millions... When those said blockbusters are selling so well on PS360?

I'll give you an example, using a big hit game you gave me.
Call of Duty: World at War (launched day and date with PS360 versions) - 1.40M (PS3 - 3.81 360 - 6.15)
Carnival Games, Game Party, Deca Sports - 3.54M, 2.17M, 2.14M

Now, what impression do you think that has on developers?

Do you notice how all those minigame collections you used were all released early in the Wii's life and their sequels have performed poorly?  It is clear that consumers do not want any more of those.

This CoD: World at War thing has been done to death, but sure, let's go over it again.  CoD 3 on the Wii outsold the PS3 version.  The next year, the PS3 and 360 get the break-out hit CoD 4: Modern Warfare, while the Wii gets nothing.  Then, the following year, all the consoles get W@W.  The difference here is that W@W got to ride on the success of MW on the PS3 and 360, but not on the Wii.  Then of course there is the removed features on the Wii version of W@W that make it less desirable.

It is just more of what we have seen for the past three generations.  Third party publishers treat Nintendo consoles like a red-headed step-child, and expect the same results as they get on other consoles.  It is ridiculous.

I could name a few recent ones that are managing to sell pretty well. 

I can understand the lack of CoD4 hurting the WaW sales on Wii, but what was the reason for a lack of CoD4?

WHY do they treat Ninty like that?

The lack of CoD 4 on the Wii was because the engine wasn't ready in time.  It was ready for W@W, which is why the Wii got that game on time.  It was further optimized, and was used again in the recent port of MW.  For the other two consoles, I don't think that excuse would go over very well.

Why do they treat Nintendo like that?  I don't know.  You would have to ask them.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2012 (Borderlands 2) - 11 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

Innervate said:
Carl2291 said:
Demotruk said:
Carl2291 said:

2 year late ports, yes. But the highest quality games of there genre also.

Unarcadey rail shooters? Call of Duty... "Unarcedey rail shooter"? And you think you deserve these games?

I thought you were referring to the other Resident Evil games, I made a mistake. One that was of little consequence but you capitalized on it for a bit of ad hominem anyway.

Do you think the Wii Call of Duty's (forgetting 3 since it sucked generally, it's not like it sold great on PS3) compare in the sort of effort or even features that were put into the HD versions? One of them is a gimped port, the other is a two year late gimped port. Even if it weren't gimped, the game was designed to be played on the HD consoles and suffers on Wii for it.

It's not possible to give them the features that were on the HD versions. We both know this. As for effort, the game was good enough... It's better than The Conduit, which was a hyped up exclusive.

The COD games on the Wii are not better than the Conduit, and I don't understand why people keep saying this. They sell more because they are an estbalished name.

The effort was "good enough"? So having a very small team rushing a port of COD4 in 6-8 months is enough effort? You're unintentionally saying that the Wii isn't worth putting any real effort into.

No, i'm not saying that at all. I'm saying they are better quality games than what The Conduit was. And a LOT of people will agree with me.

"Good enough" to be of better quality than a hyped up exclusive FPS.